INDUSTRY CASE STUDY VORWERK - i3pmi3pm.org/.../MIPLM_Series_Case_Study_Vorwerk_Thermomix_Part-I-III.pdf · MIPLM INDUSTRY CASE STUDY | VORWERK Thermomix (I – III) 7 A PATENTED FOOD

MIPLM INDUSTRY CASE STUDY | VORWERK Thermomix (I – III) 5

INDUSTRY CASE

STUDY

CENTRE D’ÉTUDES INTERNATIONALES DE LA PROPRIÉTÉ INTELLECTUELLE

Master for Intellectual Property Law and Management

MIPLM Industry Case Study Series Nr.: ICSS2015-01 CEIPI, University Strasbourg in cooperation with Steinbeis Transfer Institute for Intellectual Property Management Steinbeis-University Berlin, Thalkirchner Str. 2, 80337 Munich

VORWERK Thermomix (I)

Strategy Development

By Alexander J. Wurzer

& Kai Schäfner


AUTHORS

Prof. Dr. Alexander J. Wurzer

Dr. Wurzer is Adjunct Professor for IP Management at the Center for International Intellectual

Property Studies (Centre d’Etudes Internationales de la Propriété Industrielle, CEIPI) at the

University of Strasbourg, where he has been Director of Studies for the Master’s degree in

Intellectual Property Law and Management (MIPLM) since 2007. Prof. Dr. Wurzer is Director of

the Steinbeis Transfer Institute for Intellectual Property Management at Steinbeis University

Berlin. He is Managing Partner at WURZER & KOLLEGEN GmbH, a consulting firm specializing

in strategic IP management.

Prof. Dr. Wurzer is Chairman of DIN committees DIN 77006 for quality in IP management and

DIN 77100 for patent valuation. He is a member of the Board of Directors of “Deutsches Institut

für Erfindungswesen e.V.” (DIE), Spokesman of the Board of Trustees awarding the Diesel Medal

and Fellow at the Alta Scuola Politecnica at Milan/Turin Polytechnic. He is also a jury member for

the 2018 German Innovation Award of the German Design Council and a member of the group of

experts of the European Commission.

Kai Schäffner

Senior Vice President Marketing at Vorwerk International in Wollerau/Switzerland. As a Member

of the Management Board for the Thermomix division, he is responsible for international

marketing and product innovation.


A PATENTED FOOD PROCESSOR

How did Vorwerk manage to turn its

Thermomix into a cult object in Europe’s

kitchens? The answer is a whole new

intellectual property strategy which no

longer sees patents as a trophy for

inventors, but rather as an instrument for

protecting the exclusive perception of

customer value.

It is considered the Porsche among food

processors – a status symbol for home cooks

and family managers, who lovingly refer to it

as “Thermie” and take to online forums to

rave about its “incredible addictiveness” or

share their recipes for broccoli salad or home-

made cough syrup for children. The

Thermomix from Vorwerk does much more

than just weigh, cut, blend, cook and steam.

The latest model, called TM5, comes with an

integrated feature that sets it apart from all

other food processors: digital recipe chips

which guide the user through the

preparation process by providing step-by-

step instructions on a display. Times and

temperatures for each step are already pre-

set. With this success guarantee, Vorwerk

taps into a whole new customer segment,

namely people who aren’t the greatest cooks

but would like to be or have to be.

This kitchen revolution comes at a price: the

TM5, which replaced its predecessor TM31 in

September 2014, costs EUR 1,109. Its price

penetration is impressive. Vorwerk, who are

represented in 70 countries worldwide, sell a

Thermomix every 30 seconds, including in

crisis-ridden countries like Portugal or Spain,

where it costs nearly twice the monthly

minimum wage. In Madrid, a Thermomix

can be found in every fifth household. In

order for this premium price strategy to

succeed in a fierce competitive environment,

the engineers at Wuppertal-based Vorwerk

have designed numerous unique selling

points into their food processor. After all,

perceived exclusivity is a critical factor for

price acceptance among customers.

Although competitive high-tech devices such

as the Philips Home Cooker, Taurus

MyCook, Krups Prep & Cook or Kenwood

Cooking Chef promise similar benefits, a

protective wall consisting of 151 patent

applications for the TM5 (more than ten

times as many as for its predecessor) keeps

the competition at bay.

How did Vorwerk manage to do that? The

recipe for success behind the Thermomix is a

new strategy for dealing with intellectual

property (IP). In 2012, the company decided

to modernise its IP strategy and to do many

things differently to what’s recommended in

textbooks on innovation and IP

management. Going forward, the starting

point was going to be the customer benefit

instead of tailoring patents exclusively to

technical details and other features.


The competition never sleeps

It all began with the realisation that the

competitive environment had become

increasingly dynamic since the launch of the

last product generation in 2004. The market

had seen a proliferation of food processors

across various performance and price

categories. Although none of them

represented a real threat to the dominant

market position of the Thermomix, the

strong presence of competitive solutions on

the Internet and home shopping TV channels

resulted in a loss of perceived exclusivity for

the Thermomix.

Consequently, the Management Board of

Vorwerk’s Thermomix division decided to

hold a strategy meeting in order to discuss

the competitive situation in February 2012.

The picture painted by the Competitive

Intelligence team was rather bleak: the

former uniqueness of the Thermomix in the

market was about to erode.

Senior management was particularly upset at

the largely identical blades found in

competitive products. The blade is the

central functional tool of a food processor –

and not just for cutting, chopping and

crushing, but also for stirring and kneading.

Because its effect keeps changing throughout

the cooking process, the shape of the blade in

the Thermomix is based on complex

calculations in order to ensure that it even

withstands the forces involved in processing

yeast dough and ice cubes. A look into the

mixing bowls of a MyCook, Speedcook or

Superchef, however, revealed that the shapes

of the blades used by the competition were

barely distinguishable. This meant that

consumers were struggling to recognise the

superior features of the Thermomix. The

Competitive Intelligence team reached

similar conclusions with regard to handling

and accessories.

During a subsequent discussion, the CFO

questioned the actual prohibitive effect of the

existing IP portfolio in the light of

considerable IP expenditure. While

especially the product name was covered by

trademark rights in its most important

markets around the globe, it turned out that

patent protection concerned mainly technical

features such as the shock absorber of the

drive shaft – in other words: features few

customers are aware of. Conversely,

numerous features of the Thermomix which

were important to the customer (for example

the shape of the blade) were not represented

in the patent portfolio at all. This meant that

there was nothing to prevent competitors

from offering very similar benefits to those

provided by the Thermomix as far as the

display, the control elements or the use of

stored recipes were concerned. In addition to

legitimate competitive products, an

increasing number of knock-off products

imitating such features as the Varoma

steaming attachment were appearing on the

market. With the emergence of online shops

selling food processors, Vorwerk was also

increasingly confronted with the problem of

counterfeit blades and accessories.


The need for a new IP strategy

As the launch of the new product generation

TM5 in 2014 was just around the corner,

Vorwerk had to decide whether to stick to its

current IP strategy and take the risk of

jeopardising the market position of the new

Thermomix, or whether to look for a

different solution. It didn’t take long for the

Thermomix CEO and the Vorwerk CTO

(who was also responsible for the patent

strategy at Vorwerk) to realise that a new IP

strategy was needed. The aim for the new

strategy was to restore the perceived gap in

the eyes of the customer between the

Thermomix and competitive food

processors, and to enforce the premium price

of the new Thermomix.

The CEO and CTO subsequently

commissioned the authors of this article with

the development and implementation of the

new IP strategy. Together with the Head of

the Patent department and the Vice President

responsible for the Legal and Trademark

department, they formed the core of the

strategy team. The aim for the TM5 was to

align IP strategy with marketing strategy.

Going forward, Vorwerk’s focus was no

longer going to be on protecting technical

features, but rather on designing a legal

battleground in order to protect those

features which set the Thermomix apart from

its competitors. The rationale behind this

new strategy was as follows: the greater the

exclusivity of the food processor, the greater

the perceived customer benefit and

consequently the willingness of customers to

pay a premium price. One of the authors of

this article, Vice President Marketing Kai

Schäffner, had already convinced the

Management Board of a new strategic

orientation for the product in 2008/2009,

when the development of an agenda for the

TM5 was still in its early days. As features

such as motor power, torque, speed or

heating rate played an ever-decreasing role

among its predominantly female users, the

new Thermomix was no longer going to

distinguish itself based on technical

performance alone. Much greater emphasis

was being placed on the support the food

processor was able to provide to its buyers in

everyday life. Concrete customer benefits

such as time saving, flexibility, safety and the

guarantee of consistently good cooking

results were going to be put in the

foreground of sales pitches from now on.

The Thermomix is not available in retail

stores or on the Internet but only via direct

selling. During personal demonstrations

called Thermomix® Demos, some 13,000

representatives in Germany and 34,500

worldwide demonstrate the benefits of the


food processor from the comfort of the

customer’s own home.

Prohibitive rights allow Thermomix

representatives to achieve a comprehensive

exclusive positioning of the product in all use

cases of importance to the customer. Decisive

arguments include its great flexibility in

terms of foods and ingredients, for example.

The device can be used for thousands of

recipes: from soups and salads to meat

dishes, desserts and pastry. Its digital

connection to the fan community means that

the device has access to one of the largest

recipe platforms in the world. Because

cooking with the Thermomix is largely

automatic, without the user having to stand

by, it also helps to save time. Guided cooking

means that digital recipe chips take care of

most process steps for inexperienced cooks.

All the user needs to do is fill the device with

the right ingredients and tap on the “Next”

button on the touch display once a step has

been completed. The unique safety concept

of the TM5, on the other hand, is an

important selling point for mothers because

it prevents children from activating any

hazardous operating modes when playing

unsupervised in the kitchen and using the

touchscreen of the device. In addition, the

combination of a mechanical locking

mechanism with an electronic one ensures a

delayed release of the lid by the swing top, so

that hot soup cannot spurt out.

Develeopers need to adopt a

new way of thinking

The traditional sequence of the patent

development process is to invent something

first and then apply for a patent. With the

Thermomix, Vorwerk turned this sequence

upside down: because the customer benefit

was going to be at the centre of the new IP

strategy, the company now designed patents

around the perceived benefit instead of the

other way round. The reasoning behind this

approach was simple: because patents are

prohibitive rights, the crucial question for

their design should be “Who should be

prevented from doing what by patents?”.

Previously, Vorwerk had focused on

preventing imitations of its own

technological solutions, but the new strategic

focus on customer benefits required a new

way of thinking.

This called for a paradigm shift among in-

house developers, who had to understand

that patents aren’t trophies for inventors but

strategic competitive instruments. It didn’t

take long, however, to convince marketing

and brand experts of this new order. In a first

step, Vorwerk integrated the Thermomix

Product Management and Technical

Marketing departments into the Intellectual

Property team. All members of the newly

formed team participated in patent design

workshops revolving around the questions

of how competitors might be able to achieve

a similar degree of flexibility, time savings,

safety

VORWERK

A patented food

processor

By Alexander J. Wurzer

& Kai Schäffner


and guaranteed recipe success, and what

solutions competitors should be prevented

from offering.

The developers took the technical solutions

for the Thermomix as a starting point.

Flexibility in the kitchen begins with the

available recipes. If in a special data format,

these recipes can also be used directly as a

control protocol for the device. Key

considerations in this respect include the

prevention of unauthorised third-party

access to the mechanical and electronic data

interface in order to prevent unsafe operating

modes. In addition, hackers must be

prevented from accessing the control unit

and recipe chips must be compatible. All

patents held by Vorwerk are related to the

company’s business model. Running verified

and quality-assured recipes on the

Thermomix required a licence. The IP team

examined every aspect perceivable by the

customer and exploited the full range of

intellectual property rights. An important

feature which hadn’t previously been

protected by IP, for example, was the

sequence of tones by which millions of

Thermomix devices indicate the end of the

cooking process. The idea that a food

processor from a discount store would be

allowed to sound just like a Thermomix

triggered alarm bells among everybody

involved. Sound marks play an extremely

important role within the scope of acoustic

brand management. Even toddlers are able

to recognise the Thermomix by the ascending

sequence of tones at the end of the cooking

process. In the meantime, this four-tone

sound has been protected by a sound mark.

To suppress knock-offs of the blade and the

Varoma attachment, engineers have

modified these parts in such a way that they

can now be better protected from imitation

by means of patents. Vorwerk protected the

unique selling point of high data safety by

covering the data compatibility of the

Thermomix by means of copyrights and

database rights, and the locking mechanism

by means of patent rights. The company took

a similar approach for protecting its

guaranteed recipe success. The exterior

design was protected by design rights, 3D

trademarks and figurative marks.

Accessories such as blades or the spatula

now proudly carry the Thermomix logo.

The journey towards new IP

In order to understand what’s so special

about the Thermomix IP strategy, we must

take a closer look. It is neither uncommon to

apply for patents, trademarks and design

rights for all sorts of features of a new device,

nor is it uncommon to think about how


competitors might try to circumvent these

rights. The modern IP approach for the

Thermomix consists of three steps:

1. DETERMINING THE DESIRED

MARKET POSITION

Prior to defining a budget for the

protection of intellectual property, it

must be clear what effect a company

hopes to achieve from its intellectual

property rights in the market. At

Vorwerk, the core objective for the

Thermomix was to achieve the most

unique positioning possible in terms

of perceived benefits and exclusivity,

as this allows the company to develop

an optimised customer benefit

compared to the competition.

2. INVOLVING MARKET EXPERTS IN

PATENT DEVELOPMENT

Only in exceptional circumstances

should the R&D department invent

new product features without the

involvement of the IP department.

Instead, the Product Management

and Marketing departments start by

defining the perceived customer

benefit and determining which

features of competitive products

customers are actually aware of.

Based on this information, the IP

department then designs prohibitive

rights to prevent the competition from

offering similar customer benefits.

3. PATENTING CUSTOMER

BENEFITS, NOT TECHNOLOGY

It would be a mistake to put too great

an emphasis on technical inventions

when patenting a product, because it

usually isn’t the exact technology

inside a product that closes a sale.

The IP department must therefore

generally develop worst-case

scenarios in line with the customer

benefit and ask themselves the

following questions: What strategies

are competitors going to use in order

to imitate the customer benefit of our

product? How can we block these

attempts? Patent experts will then

develop so-called synthetic

inventions together with R&D. This

refers to a product design which is

derived from the desired customer

benefit and can be distinguished from

existing technical solutions. These

novelties, provided they are novel

and contain an inventive step, are

patented regardless of whether or not

the company also uses the specific

solution in question for its own

purposes. In any case, this permits

the company to prohibit competitors

from imitating a specific customer

benefit. From the customer’s point of

view, it increases the exclusivity of the

product.

The proof is in the pudding

How do Vorwerk benefit from all these

measures? Can the success of intellectual

property management be measured? The

problem with prohibitive rights is that things

that aren’t happening are difficult to

monitor. In addition, the dictum of Balanced

Scorecard developers Robert Kaplan and

David Norton applies: “If you can’t measure

it, you can’t manage it.” Companies focusing

on technical features when designing patents


won’t know whether they’ve used their IP

rights effectively until knock-off products

appear on the market. Simultaneously,

companies like Vorwerk, whose IP strategy

focuses on customer benefits, face additional

difficulties when measuring IP success:

What’s the customer benefit of the original

product compared to much cheaper knock-

offs, for example?

When the Vorwerk Management Board

decided to implement the new IP strategy, it

set concrete goals which had to be achieved

in order for budgets to be released. The main

objective was to achieve the greatest possible

uniqueness in terms of the perceived

customer benefit, but this can neither be

monitored nor measured. As a workaround,

Vorwerk uses a variety of information

sources in order to understand why

customers have ultimately opted for the

Thermomix: What benefit closed the sale?

Which competitive products did the buyer

consider? What’s the buyer’s attitude

towards other food processors? In addition,

the company monitors the opinions of users

and non-users alike in chats, in forums and

on recipe platforms.

The results confirm that Vorwerk is on the

right track with its new IP strategy. While

some competitors have since launched a

series of similar devices such as the Krups

Prep & Cook, a food processor with a

cooking function which hit the shelves just a

few weeks after the TM5, the premium value

proposition of the Thermomix remains

unmatched.

In fact, Vorwerk’s order books for the

Thermomix are bursting at their seams.

Waiting times for the patented food

processor are currently 12 weeks. Orders

worth EUR 160 million had to be shifted to

the following fiscal year in 2014, with the

total turnover of the Thermomix division up

15 percent to EUR 920 million compared to

2013. In order to meet the high demand,

Vorwerk is currently extending capacities at

the main plant in Wuppertal and the

production location in France.

Conclusion

Fascinated and astounded media reports

describing the Thermomix as “The German

Answer to Apple and Co.” (Cicero) or “The

Device of the Hour” (Frankfurter Allgemeine

Zeitung) are proof that Vorwerk’s IP strategy

has paid off. The Thermomix has become a

cult object in Europe’s kitchens, which

proves to anyone who finds patents boring

that, if applied in the right way, patents can

boost product success and keep the

competition at bay in the long term.


COMPACT

THE PROBLEM

In 2012, Vorwerk managers began to notice the imminent erosion of the unique selling points

of their premium food processor Thermomix. Too many copycat products had entered the

market. Knock-offs of exclusive Thermomix features such as blade shape or the steamer

attachment made customers question whether the market leader’s premium-priced model was

really the product of choice.

THE SOLUTION

The company therefore opted for a radical overhaul of its IP strategy with the introduction of

the successor model TM5. Instead of patenting technical features, the household appliance

manufacturer decided to put customer benefits at the centre of its patent strategy from now

on, and to protect all perceivable features of the device that are related to flexibility, time

savings, safety and guaranteed recipe success.

THE BENEFIT

The strategy has paid off: the TM5 launched in September 2014 has already become a cult

object among home cooks and professional chefs. Vorwerk have received so many orders for

the Thermomix that they are struggling to keep up with its production. Competitive products

no longer play a significant role in customers’ mindsets.

Contact

Alexander Wurzer

[email protected]

REPRINT

Number 201508058, see page 94 or www.harvardbusinessmanager.de

© 2015 Harvard Business Manager


INDUSTRY CASE

STUDY

VORWERK Thermomix (II)

Organizational implementation of a patent strategy

By Alexander J. Wurzer,

Wolfgang Berres & Rolf-Jürgen Krämer



MIPLM Industry Case Study Series Nr.: ICSS2015-01-317 CEIPI, University Strasbourg in cooperation with Steinbeis Transfer Institute for Intellectual Property Management Steinbeis-University Berlin, Thalkirchner Str. 2, 80337 Munich

Mitt. Heft 4/2006 Wurzer/Berres/Krämer Organizational implementation of a patent strategy

* Prof. Dr. Alexander J. Wurzer, Wurzer und Kollegen GmbH, Munich. ** Dipl.-Kaufm. Wolfgang Berres, Wurzer und Kollegen GmbH, Munich. *** Dipl.-Ing., Rolf-Jürgen Krämer, Vorwerk, Wuppertal.


Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte (Bulletin of German Patent Attorneys)

Published by the Executive Board of the German Chamber of Patent Attorneys

107. Issue, April 2016

Organizational implementation of a patent strategy – a case study

Alexander Wurzer* /Wolfgang Berres** /Rolf-Jürgen Krämer***

The development of the fifth generation of

the multifunctional Thermomix food processor

at Vorwerk was accompanied by the

development and organizational

implementation of a new IP strategy. This

article uses the strategy-structure-fit model to

describe the organizational integration of the

differentiation strategy developed for the

Thermomix in an integrated patent

development and management system. It

describes the set-up of the differentiation

center along with its system interfaces, and

derives key success factors from the lessons

learnt.

I. Strategy-structure-fit in the context of

patent organization1

The starting point for aligning a company's

operations with its patent development and

management efforts is an adequate task

distribution. The challenge is to distribute the

required workload (from a quantitative

perspective) and the different requirements

for the work to be completed (from a

qualitative perspective). A distribution of tasks

creates interfaces and interaction between

staff functions and organizational units. These

must be optimized in accordance with

managerial objectives such as efficiency,

flexibility, goal orientation, effectiveness and

controllability.2 A framework objective should

be to design an organizational structure which

provides a fit with strategic requirements

(strategy-structure-fit) and uses the

organizational structure as a regulatory system

and infrastructure for implementing the

strategy.3 The strategy-structure-fit thus

becomes a quality criterion for an

organizational structure.4

The discussion of organization in patent

management primarily follows four different

strands: structural organization,5 process

organization,6 task and function organization7

as well as IP culture.8 While the first three

strands only show a marginal interest in the

strategy-structure-fit, the literature about IP

culture calls for an organizational

implementation of patent strategy, however,

without specifying concrete structural

requirements to be verified and optimized

within the context of a strategy-structure-fit.9

Strategy and organizational structure are

interdependent. According to Chandler,

structure must follow strategy. At the same

time, however, with organizational structures

being slow to react to change, they limit a

company's strategic flexibility.10 From a

practical perspective, it is key for patent

management to establish and regularly verify

an organization's strategy-structure-fit.11 A

company's business model defines its patent

strategy and its objectives12, and thus the

organizational structure required for

implementing that strategy.13 It must be

ensured that individual elements of

organizational importance, such as patent and

portfolio evaluation criteria, can be coherently

and consistently derived from business

objectives14 and used as a basis for meaningful

controlling.15 A number of authors, however,

describe a lack of such consistency and

coherence in everyday practice. 16 This calls for

an integrated patent management system in



which effectiveness and efficiency goals are

aligned with each other.17 The literature

provides concrete examples for patent

strategies with consistent organizational

structures from various industries.18

The case of the organizational

implementation of a strategy for the

Thermomix, a multifunctional food processor

manufactured by Vorwerk, described in this

paper, relates to a differentiation center. A

differentiation center is the organizational

implementation of a differentiation strategy.19

A market and competitive strategy of this kind

focuses on customer-relevant USPs and thus

prevents isolated price comparisons with

competitive offers by the customer. In contrast

to general product features, the tangible

benefits of which are not always clear to the

customer, such a strategy addresses the direct

benefits perceived by customers and results in

their willingness to pay a premium price.

II. The Vorwerk case – the implementation of a

differentiation strategy

The differentiating features of the

Thermomix oriented at customer benefits

include integrated storage for recipe data

guiding the user through the food preparation

process step by step, a sophisticated safety

concept, as well as an intuitive user interface

which even enables users to pause the process,

skip steps, and modify steps in order to stay on

top of the process at all times. At the same

time, the customer can rely on the recipes and

functions of the Thermomix whenever needed.

In comparison to competitive products, this so-

called “guided cooking” leads to a substantially

different customer perception and a clear

differentiation advantage for the product.21 In

order to make the uniqueness of the product

perceived by the customer sustainable and

legally enforceable, the company has

developed a patent strategy which is

integrated with its differentiation approach.

This was achieved by creating comprehensive

patent positions which prohibit the

competition from imitating the underlying

technology for the perceived customer

benefits. This creates a bias in favour of the

Thermomix due to a lack of comparability.

It is important to anchor such a patent

strategy oriented at the differentiation

advantage perceived by the customer rather

than at intrinsic product features in the

organizational structure. The integration of

strategy and organization is ensured by

distinguishing between two operational

components of patent management:

identifying the effects required from patents

and meeting those needs. In order to identify

and qualify these requirements, the desired

exclusive capabilities are derived from the

business model as well as the market and

competitive strategy related to the

differentiation approach. These requirements

for exclusivity are subsequently ensured by

means of prohibitive rights which, in turn, are

positioned in a goal-oriented manner by means

of synthetic inventions.

The design of a patent strategy within the

context of a differentiation approach and its

implementation in the form of a differentiation

center must be based on the following

considerations when determining the need for

patents:

Can patents protect the return on

innovation?

Certain prerequisites must be given in order

to be able to use patents beyond protection

from imitation, namely for creating exclusive

and defensible competitive positions. Vorwerk

customers are open to innovation. In fact, they

expect continuous innovative product

improvements and extensions. Vorwerk

customers are also willing to pay for greater

customer benefits. In addition, the company's

substantial R&D expenditure provides a strong

economic motivation for amortizing these

investments by means of positions of

exclusivity.



Does the market offer customers a choice

between product and service offers of

different competitors?

Customer decision-making processes and

the influence of prohibitive rights on the

outcome of their decisions form the basis for

using patents within the scope of a

differentiation strategy. Product categories are

defined by the similarity between marketing

propositions being used by the competitors

within a market and lead to the comparability

of product offerings from a customer

perspective. The need for patents arises from

the necessity of being able to offer superior

products and services and position them in

their competitive environment in the most

exclusive ways possible. This is the case with

the Thermomix.

Does a company's success largely depend

on achieving a premium price with the

customer?

The need for patents within the scope of a

differentiation strategy increases with

customers' willingness to accept price

premiums for superior product features where

price differentiation for the perceived

differences between competitive products is a

customary marketing strategy. In addition,

brand personality plays a crucial role for

product offerings and price acceptance in such

markets. This is also the case for the

Thermomix.

Does the company rely on customer

benefits in marketing its products and

services?

Prohibitive rights help to create exclusive

customer benefits in order to defend one's

market position within the scope of the

differentiation approach. This increases the

freedom to operate in the marketing mix. A key

prerequisite is to clearly distinguish one's

products from the competition. Distinctive

product features of the Thermomix include

guided cooking, its human-machine-interface

and its safety concept. In addition, it is

important to be aware of and continuously

reinforce the reasons why customers choose a

specific product over another. This is the case

with Vorwerk's distribution system.

Does the competition also use customer

benefit and/or price propositions?

In order to ensure greatest possible

differentiation, protecting unique product

features against imitation is not enough as this

would allow competitors offering

technologically inferior products to advertise

the same customer benefits in their customer-

facing communication. Especially with

technologically complex solutions like the

Thermomix, the quality of different solutions is

difficult to assess for customers. Prohibitive

rights oriented at a specific customer benefit,

however, can turn marketing propositions into

USPs. Prohibitive rights allow manufacturers to

achieve a sustainable and goal-oriented

competitive differentiation.

These basic considerations demonstrate the

need for an organizational implementation of

patent strategies. They show that the need for

patents arises from market and competitive

positions as well as customers' decision-

making criteria rather than from the direct

outcomes of a company's R&D efforts. From an

organizational perspective, this means that the

need for patents must primarily be derived

from the need for exclusivity in the market, and

subsequently integrated in the systematic

development of the portfolio. It also means

that a process must be in place at an early stage

of the product development (PDP) and road

map process in order to enable the

identification of these needs. Vorwerk has

integrated its patent process into the road map

process and holds regular road map meetings

in order to determine the need for patent

development within the context of the further

development of its product and service range

as well as its business model.

III. Organizational components of an

integrated patent management system

A patent management system creates a link

between strategic goals, processes and tools

for managing patents.22 By additionally

including other areas such as innovation

management, corporate strategy, marketing,

product management, controlling, etc. in a

cross-functional management approach, a



patent management system similar to

Vorwerk's can be achieved23. An integrated

patent management systems comprises the

following core elements:24

Strategic objectives25

Strategy is defined as entrepreneurial

action enabling the achievement of specific

goals and leading to coherence in a company's

decision-making processes. The central

strategic objective of the Thermomix

differentiation center is to achieve greatest

possible uniqueness for the the perceived

customer benefits of the company's product

and service offer.

Process landscape26

Processes are interlinked and interacting

activities which can be categorized in groups

and define the overall process landscape at

Vorwerk. Identifying the need for patents in

order to create USPs for future products or

services is a central process within the

differentiation center for the Thermomix.

Tool landscape27

This includes methods and software-based

support tools enabling the execution and

linking of processes. An example of such a

software-based tool is IP-FD (Intellectual

Property Function Deployment), which

matches the system elements for the

technological implementation of a product or

service with the corresponding customer

benefit and delivers a systematic integration of

market-oriented and technological

considerations.

Information architecture28

“Information architecture” refers to the

overall information structures, contents, and

specific tools such as processing and search

options available within a company. The notion

of information architecture also includes the

monitoring of the competitive environment via

publicly available patent information

databases, which permits the mapping and

evaluation of the patents of different

competitors with products, markets, etc.

Resources29

Key resources for patent management

include personnel and its know-how, as well as

financial resources and the asset portfolio as

such. In addition, Vorwerk also includes

infrastructural components in its definition of

resources.

Reporting and controlling30

The collection and documentation of

process-related information as part of the

reporting process creates transparency and

provides controlling options for strategy

implementation. For example, it enables an

efficient

comparison of

the planned and

actual costs of a

patent portfolio

related to a

specific

customer benefit

with customers'

willingness to

pay for the

underlying

product feature.

The

capabilities of an

integrated

management

system are

further

determined by

the interaction

Fig. 1: Schematic representation of Intellectual Property Function Deployment

(IP-FD)



between its individual elements.31

Nevertheless, the literature tends to discuss

individual elements in isolation rather than

providing explanations of meaningful

integrated configurations and specific

interactions between components in the

context of a specific business strategy.32

The elements of an IP management system

must lead to meaningful, interrelated activities

in order to achieve effectiveness within the

scope of defined strategic goals. DIN Spec

1060, which is related to service quality in

intellectual property management, reflects the

functional structure of an IP management

system, and in particular the required

interaction between these functions.33

DIN Spec 1060 distinguishes between IP

generation, design, and commercialization.

These areas of activity overlap, merge, and are

arranged in a circle. In other words, IP

generation is not the starting point of all IP-

related tasks. DIN Spec 1060 describes the

value-creation process for IP assets as a

sequence of steps. This means that the

sequence of operational steps a company

implements should be optimized in such a way

that the value created by means of each

activity within the context of the business

model can be traced and verified.34

Vorwerk implemented this basic

consideration when configuring its

differentiation center. The activities described

in DIN Spec 1060 were optimized for optimal

goal achievement and value creation with

greatest possible efficiency in terms of the

company's use of resources.

IV. Vorwerk's differentiation center

The configuration examples below

demonstrate that the coordination between

elements and tasks is of crucial importance for

an excellent operational structure and

effective goal achievement. The examples are

arranged in three categories: need

identification, need fulfilment, as well as

reporting and controlling (see also Fig. 2).

The first category serves the identification

and qualification of the need for IP within the

scope of the business model.35 This category

comprises the tasks attributed to IP generation

in DIN Spec 1060, and integrates the objectives

attributed to IP commercialization by DIN Spec

1060. Need identification therefore provides

Fig. 2: Integrated IP management system



the contextual link between IP

commercialization and IP generation.

A 360° IP strategy is used along the road

map process in order to determine IP needs.

This strategy system is based on core

considerations related to customer decision-

making. It comprises four task-oriented

sectors: risk management, suppression of

imitation, market position design, and USP

communication.

The objectives behind each of these tasks

for the 360° IP strategy are clearly defined for

the Thermomix and lead to organizational

consequences:

The “risk management” sector:

The “risk management” sector primarily

focuses on ensuring that the technologies used

in the Thermomix (such as data interfaces, the

touchscreen and the human-machine-

interface) are protected from being

compromised by third-party rights. The task of

this sector is therefore to ensure immediate

freedom to operate. A relevant FTO process is

not only implemented along the PDP, but also

for products which are already available on the

market, in order to enable continuous product

enhancements and extensions. The individual

components are verified and approved via a

database. This is where the verification status

can be viewed and logged along the PDP.

The “suppression of imitation” sector

The strategic objective of the “suppression

of imitation” sector is to protect past

investments from imitation in order to

safeguard USPs of proprietary solutions in the

market. The goal for the Thermomix is to

exclude the availability of cheaper imitations

based on technological or design-related

solutions of the Thermomix (e.g. the steamer

attachment) in the market. This requires a

continuous and systematic analysis of

competitive products and their evaluation

from a legal perspective. At Vorwerk, this takes

place within the scope of competitive

monitoring in collaboration with the marketing

department, supported by a competitive

patent database. An additional prerequisite in

this respect is the identification and protection

of proprietary inventions and market-relevant

solutions. This is ensured through the invention

reporting and patent process managed by the

R&D department in collaboration with the

patent department.

The “market position design” sector

The third sector comprises the future

market position of the Thermomix. The patent

department is

integrated in the road

map process. The

patent literature

provides potential

solutions to this

effect via

development

corridors, marketing,

desired features,

customer benefits,

and R&D.36 Desired

future positions are

protected by means

of strategic patents.37

The “USP

communication”

sector

The fourth sector

intends to ensure

continuity of market

presence in the eyes Fig. 3: Basic structure of a 360° IP strategy



of the customer and to communicate the USPs

of the value proposition. This includes

technological aspects such as the safety system

or the human-machine-interface, which are

tangible for the customer. The unique

positioning of the Thermomix as a premium

product had to be anchored in the customer's

perception through designs and trademarks,

including sound marks in order to create a

unique user experience compared to the

competition.38

Within a competitive environment based on

differentiation, the primary task of a portfolio

of prohibitive rights is to provide exclusivity in

order to achieve a premium price. A

prerequisite for an effective IP portfolio is the

precise identification of a company's need for

IP. The need for IP arises from the customer

benefit proposition. In the case of the

Thermomix, this includes such product

features as the guided cooking function,

automatic recipes, flexibility, and the success

guarantee provided by the product. The

challenge in this repect is to design prohibitive

rights along these customer benefits in order to

offer the customer a product and service

proposition which is as exclusive as possible. In

order to achieve this objective, the patent

portfolio must be aligned with the customer

benefits to be provided. Portfolio management

requires precise tools such as IP-FD

(Intellectual Property Function Deployment)

shown in Figure 1. Mapping technological

system components with customer benefits in

a differentiated manner provides insights into

which technological aspects must be protected

from the competition by means of prohibitive

rights.

Figure 2 shows to what extent this is

achievable and highlights gaps in the

company's own portfolio. Adding third-party IP

to the mapping in IP-FD demonstrates where IP

efforts are required within the company in

order to achieve relevant prohibitive positions,

e.g. by means of synthetic inventing. In

addition, IP-FD offers the option of verifying

the IP relevance of market activities (e.g.

competitors' advertising claims) in order to

derive suitable countermeasures from it.

The second field of activity is aimed at

covering the need for prohibitive rights.

According to DIN Spec 1060, this is included in

IP design. Within the scope of the 360° IP

strategy, the tasks of the patent department go

beyond the protection of R&D results: the core

task is to protect Vorwerk's desired and

required market positions by means of

synthetic inventing. In contrast to the second

sector of the 360° IP strategy comprising the

protection of R&D results, synthetic inventing

is about an inventive process initiated by the

patent department based on the need for IP;

the availability of concrete R&D results is not

required at this stage.39

After defining the precise prohibitive scope

required from the patent, the novelty of the

inventive idea is ensured by means of relevant

literature searches, and the actual inventive

contribution is defined in joint workshops by

the employees responsible for the markets and

technologies in question. Until such time as all

intended features are integrated in the patent

and the expected prohibitive scope also

includes prospective customer benefits, this

can also be an iterative process in individual

cases. In order to support the road map

process, a specific tool kit was developed,

which integrates the required market and

technology-related human resources in the

patent design process in the most efficient

manner possible.

The third field of activity relates to the

reporting and controlling of patent activities.

These activities ensure that the three different

fields of activity according to DIN Spec 1060,

namely IP generation, IP design, and IP

commercialization, are aligned with each other

in the patent management system and

therefore lead to results that meet the

objectives. IP controlling provides

transparency on whether the defined

objectives have been met and enables active

portfolio control.

Concrete commercial objectives are defined

in the 360° IP strategy and specific spheres of

exclusivity are prioritised by means of IP-FD.

This permits an analysis of the patent portfolio

and the use of financial resources along these

objectives.40 After four years of systematic



patent development and management efforts,

and the definition of precise exclusivity goals in

the 360° IP strategy, approx. 70% of the patents

and applications included in the patent

portfolio for the Thermomix are related to the

defined objectives and approx. 30% of the

inventions are not directly linked to these goals

but were registered and are maintained for

higher strategic reasons.

Figure 4 shows examples of portfolio KPIs

along the strategic sectors. The corresponding

patents are mapped with exclusivity goals.

These goals are important for the customer

benefit and for generating added value within

the company's value chain. A continuous

controlling of IP-related costs and benefits,

their documentation, and their analysis

permits a targeted design/optimization of the

IP portfolio and the necessary budgets based

on effectiveness criteria.41

V. System interfaces and system gaps42

During the implementation of the

differentiation center, the alignment of some

elements and tasks proved to be particularly

challenging for Vorwerk. It is known from the

implementation of strategies in other

companies43 that typical interfaces exist whose

configuration is particularly important for

strategy implementation. If their configuration

is unsuccessful, these interfaces result in

sensitive system gaps. Critical interfaces and

typical system gaps include:

Taxonomy

An effective taxonomy within the

differentiation center must allow for a mapping

of proprietary and third-party IP with product

features and customer benefits. Otherwise an

effective monitoring of the portfolio and the

competitive environment cannot be

guaranteed.

Monitoring of the competitive environment

The competitive environment must be

monitored systematically and continuously,

both through market observation and product

Fig. 4: Example of a 360° scorecard for controlling the effectiveness of IP



analysis, and by means of patent analysis. Any

monitoring which does not map products with

patents and does not take into account and

share the opinions of engineers with the

relevant parties on an ongoing basis is

inefficient.

Portfolio management

The criteria for portfolio analysis must be

operationalized based on the objectives of the

IP strategy and must be measurable.44 This

requires a common understanding of benefits

and effects among the different business

functions such as product management, R&D,

marketing, and IP, as well as documentation by

means of easy-to-understand performance

indicators.45

Synthetic inventing

A critical component of synthetic inventing

is the integration of market intelligence in

combination with a company's technological

intelligence. Since patents are designed in

workshops as and when needed, the necessary

human resources must be deployed for this

specific purpose and equipped with the

necessary motivation.

Links to the road map

IP must be included and taken into account

in the very early stages of the road map

process, even if no actual inventive intent

exists. This requires certain competencies and

resources within the road map team. In

addition, a certain degree of technological

understanding with regard to the possibilities

offered by IP must be given in order to define

claims for future market positions as early as

possible.46

Employee invention remuneration

Especially in the third sector of the 360° IP

strategy (“market position design”), prohibitive

rights are created which, at the time of patent

application, are not linked to specific product

activities, and which may never result in the

development of corresponding product or

service propositions. These patents may,

however, be necessary in order to protect the

company's market position. Employees must

be adequately remunerated for the invention

of such strategic positions.

VI. Summary: Key success factors of Vorwerk's

IP organization

The Thermomix owes its successful unique

positioning and the resulting enforcement of

premium prices along with a continuous

expansion of its market presence not least to

the corresponding patent portfolio.47 The

differentiation center for implementing the IP

strategy has been in operation for more than

four years and manages the portfolio in line

with the company's strategic needs. Some of

the lessons learnt with regard to successful IP

development and management are

summarized below:

Integration of market intelligence: From

identifying needs to designing patents and

reporting: the integration of market

intelligence in the patent development

and management process is key.

Design of prohibitive rights along the

customer benefits of product and service

propositions: The prohibitive effect of

patents must ensure the exclusivity of the

perceived customer benefit in the

differentiation center.

Customer decision-making as the basis for

IP: It is crucial to identify the tangible

competencies and product features in the

eyes of the customer which can be

influenced by means of IP.

Use of response data in order to

continuously improve the IP design:

Control loops from effectiveness

monitoring to IP design are the basis for a

continuous improvement and

optimization of the effect of IP in line with

the business model.



1 While an actual IP organization was developed for the implementation of the IP strategy for the Vorwerk Thermomix (cf. footnote 24), describing that strategy in full would exceed the scope of this article. We are therefore focusing on the patent-related part of Vorwerk's integrated IP management only (cf. section (III)).

2 Schreyögg, Organisation: Grundlagen moderner Organisationsgestaltung, 2006, pp. 4ff. 3 Schuh, Change Management – Prozesse strategiekonform gestalten, 2005, pp. 22 ff. 4 Liu/Chin, Development of audit system for intellectual property management excellence, Expert Systems

with Applications 37 (2010) 4504. 5 cf. Gassmann/Bader, Patentmanagement, 2006, pp. 103 ff. and references. 6 cf. Kahn/Thompson/Freedman/Venturino, Intellectual Property Benchmarking Survey: Current and best

practices for patent processing, Les Nouvelles 6 (2012) 174 and references. 7 cf. Günther/Moses, Patentaktivitäten und deren betriebliche Umsetzung – Ergebnisse einer Befragung von

Technologieunternehmen in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz, ZfBF, Vol. 62.2010, 6, 680 and references.

8 cf. Sullivan, Extracting Value from Intellectual Property, in: Sullivan (Ed.), Profiting from Intellectual Capital, 1998; Davis/Harrison, Edison in the Boardroom, 2001; Pike, Virtual Monopoly, 2001.

9 cf. Plischke, Grundzüge erfolgreicher Patentstrategien in Unternehmen, Mitt. 2005, 407. 10 Vahs, Organisation: Einführung in die Organisationstheorie und -praxis, 3rd edition, 2001, p. 183;

Chandler, Strategy and Structure, Chapters in the History of Industrial Enterprise, 1962. 11 Mittelstaedt, IP-Cert – das IP-Management, seine Auditierung und Zertifizierung, Mitt. 2014, 204. 12 Burr/Stephan/Soppe/Weisheit, Patentmanagement, 2007, p. 90; Schulze, Patent-Portfoliomanagement für

große Unternehmen, Mitt. 2015, 417. 13 “Strategy implementation inevitably involves many parts of the organization”, Sullivan: Extracting Value

from Intellectual Property, in: Sullivan, Profiting from Intellectual Capital, 1998, p. 111; Frey/Wurzer, IP-Managers in Strategy Development: Integrating IP into Business Models, in: Wurzer, IP-Manager, 2009, pp. 101 ff.

14 cf. IP management system, Davis/Harrison, Edison in the Boardroom, 2991, p. 15; Pike, Virtual Monopoly, 2001, pp. 178 ff.

15 cf. Metrics and Indicators for IP-Strategies and IP-Management, Hunter, A management perspective, in: Bosworth, Webster (Ed.), The Management of Intellectual Property, 2006, pp. 77–80.

16 Wurzer/Wieselhuber, Informationsbedarf im Aufsichtsrat zur Bewertung der Innovationsleistung des Unternehmens, Board 5 (2014) 203–206; PWC, One-Fits it all, 2008, pp. 23 f.; Hundertmark, Nutzen und Management von Schutzinstrumenten, 2012, p. 132 and references.

17 Wurzer, Integriertes Innovations- und Patentmanagement, in: Gleich/Rauen/Russo/Wittenstein (Ed.), Innovationsmanagement in der Investitionsgüterindustrie treffsicher voranbringen, 2006, pp. 34 ff.; Wurzer, Integriertes Innovations- und Patentmanagement, in: Gleich/Rauen/Russo/Wittenstein (Ed.), Innovationsmanagement in der Investitionsgüterindustrie treffsicher voranbringen, 2nd edition, 2012, pp. 376 ff.

18 Wurzer/Kaiser, Patente, Produkte und Profite, Harvard Business Manager, 6 (2006) 23–35. 19 Grant, Contemporary Strategy Analysis, 7th Ed., 2011: p. 211; Wurzer/Köllner, Wertorientiertes Patent-

Design, Mitt. 2015, 351. 20 The differentiation center is a specific type of cost center, cf. for strategic nomenclature Davis/ Harrison,

Edison in the Boardroom, 2001, p. 19. 21 Wurzer/Schäffner, Patente Küchenmaschine, Harvard Business Manager 8 (2015) 59–63. 22 cf. MTU example: Grünberger, Vom IP-Management zum Intellectual Asset Management, EPI, Munich: 8

March 2012; cf. Henkel example: Kucken, Strategisches IP-Portfoliomanagement, Patente, Munich: 12 March 2014; Langfinger, Strategisches IP-Management, IP-Bewertung, Frankfurt: 27-28 March 2006.

23 cf. Niethammer, Integratives Patentmanagement, Patente, Munich, 5 March 2013; Germeraad, Integration of intellectual property strategy with innovation strategy, Research Technology Management 5/6 (2010) 10–18; Granstrand, corporate management of intellectual property in Japan, Technology Management, 19 (2000) 121–148; Granstrand/Holgersson, Multinational technology and intellectual property management – is there global convergence and/or specialization?, Int. J. Technology Management 64 (2014) 117–147.

24 cf. “Strategy implementation inevitably involves many parts of the organization”, Sullivan: Extracting Value from Intellectual Property, in: Sullivan, Profiting from Intellectual Capital, 1998, p. 112.

25 Burr/Stephan/Soppe/Weisheit, Patentmanagement, 2007, p. 90.



26 cf. Kromm, Process Optimization in Corporate IP Departments, IP Service World, Munich: 25 November 2013; Mohnkopf, Wissenssicherung im Ideen- und Erfindungswesen, in: Mohnkopf/Moser: Wissensmanagement für Schutzrechte und ihre Bewertung, 2014, p. 17; Gassmann/Bader: Patentmanagement, 2006, pp. 37 ff.

27 Wurzer, Integriertes Innovations- und Patentmanagement, in: Gleich/Rauen/Russo/Wittenstein (Ed.), Innovationsmanagement in der Investitionsgüterindustrie treffsicher voranbringen, 2006, p. 48.

28 cf. Jewess, Inside Intellectual Property, 2013, pp. 53 ff.; Burr/Stephan/Soppe/Weisheit, Patentmanagement, 2007, p. 155; Moses, Faktoren einer erfolgreichen Patentsteuerung im wertorientierten Controlling, 2007, pp. 123 ff.

29 cf. Hundertmark, Nutzen und Management von Schutzinstrumenten, 2012, pp. 141 f.; Gassmann/Bader, Patentmanagement, pp. 115 f.; Moses, Faktoren einer erfolgreichen Patentsteuerung im wertorientierten Controlling, 2007, pp. 119 ff.; Wurzer, Patentmanagement, 2004, pp. 61 ff.; Eppinger/Vladova: Intellectual Property Management Practices at Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Int. J. Technology Management 61 (2013) 64–81; Fabry, IP Asset Management, Planung, Verrechnung und Kontrolle von Patent- und Markenkosten, Mitt. 2008, 399.

30 cf. Möller/Menninger/Robers: Innovationscontrolling, 2011, pp. 39 ff. 31 cf. Mittelstaedt, Strategisches IP-Management – mehr als nur Patente, 2009, pp. 39 f.; Gassmann/Bader:

Patentmanagement, 2006, pp. 103 ff. 32 cf. U.S. study, only 1/3 of all registrations are based on a business case:

Khan/Thomxon/Freedman/Venturio, Intellectual Property Benchmarking Survey: Current and best practices for patent processing, Les Nouvelles 6 (2012) 174–179.

33 DIN Spec 1060: 2010–04, DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V., Innovation: 2009. 34 cf. Wurzer, Wertorientiertes Patent-Portfolio, Mitt. 2005, 430. 35 cf. Nestlé's approach: Adams/Mollet, Integrating IP and Business Processes for Management, Example

Nestlé, EIRMA, Madrid: 20 November 2009; von Bühler: Kuffer, Business Driven Intellectual Property Management, TOPInsight, University of Ulm: 4 March 2012; Carlsson/Dtunitriu/Glass/Nard/Barrett, Intellectual Property (IP) Management: Organizational Processes and Structures, and the Role of IP Donations, J Technol Transfer 33 (2008) 549, 553

36 cf. Jeong/Yoon, Development of patent roadmap based on technology roadmap by analyzing patterns of patent development, Technovation 39–40 (2015) 37–52; Hundertmark/Reinhardt/Wurzer, Portfoliosteuerung im strategischen Patentmanagement, Mitt. 2007, 105.

37 cf. Elring Klinger patent strategy: Nedele, Patentarbeit im Mittelstand, Patente, Munich: 07 March 2012. 38 This is part of the IP process. 39 cf. Wurzer/Köllner, Wertorientiertes Patent-Design, Mitt. 2015, 350. 40 footnote 35. 41 Fabry, IP Asset Management, Planung, Verrechnung und Kontrolle von Patent- und Markenkosten, Mitt.

2008, 399. 42 Berres/Fischer/Wurzer, Betriebliche Organisation von Know-how-Schutz, in: Wurzer/Kaiser, Handbuch

Internationaler Know-how-Schutz, 2011, pp. 142 ff. 43 footnote 21. 44 cf. for the definition of IP-KPIs in IP management at Philips: Beale, KPIs in IP Management, EIRMA, Madrid:

20 November 2009; as well as at General Electric: Dilley, GE and KPI’s, as indicated 45 cf. Reinhardt/Wurzer, Value and Quality Based Patent Portfolio Management, Les Nouvelles 12 (2006)

266–273; Joppich, Patentportfolio-Projektmanagement: Kann das Patentportfolio wie ein Projekt geplant, überwacht und gesteuert werden?, Mitt. 2005, 439.

46 cf. BASF's approach: Bieberbach, Schutz zahlt sich aus, Wissenschaftsmanagement, 3 (1999) 47–49. 47 Stein, Die deutsche Antwort auf Apple und Co, Cicero, 8 May 2015; Dierig, Alle 38 Sekunden wird ein

Thermomix verkauft, Die Welt, 15 May 2014; Vorwerk, Annual Report 2014, Wuppertal: 2015, p. 14.

INDUSTRY CASE STUDY | VORWERK Thermomix (I – III) 27

INDUSTRY CASE

STUDY

VORWERK Thermomix (III)

Exclusivity monitoring:

controlling the effectiveness of the IP strategy

By Alexander J. Wurzer, Thomas Rodemann,

Sebastian Stephan & Theo Grünewald



MIPLM Industry Case Study Series Nr.: ICSS2015-01-323 CEIPI, University Strasbourg in cooperation with Steinbeis Transfer Institute for Intellectual Property Management Steinbeis-University Berlin, Thalkirchner Str. 2, 80337 Munich


AUTHORS

Prof. Dr. Alexander J. Wurzer

Dr. Wurzer is Adjunct Professor for IP Management at the Center for International Intellectual

Property Studies (Centre d’Etudes Internationales de la Propriété Industrielle, CEIPI) at the

University of Strasbourg, where he has been Director of Studies for the Master’s degree in

Intellectual Property Law and Management (MIPLM) since 2007. Prof. Dr. Wurzer is Director of

the Steinbeis Transfer Institute for Intellectual Property Management at Steinbeis University

Berlin. He is Managing Partner at WURZER & KOLLEGEN GmbH, a consulting firm specializing

in strategic IP management. Prof. Dr. Wurzer is Chairman of DIN committees DIN 77006 for

quality in IP management and DIN 77100 for patent valuation. He is a member of the Board of

Directors of “Deutsches Institut für Erfindungswesen e.V.” (DIE), Spokesman of the Board of

Trustees awarding the Diesel Medal and Fellow at the Alta Scuola Politecnica at Milan/Turin

Polytechnic. He is also a jury member for the 2018 German Innovation Award of the German

Design Council and a member of the group of experts of the European Commission.

Dr. Thomas Rodemann

He started his career at Vorwerk in 1997 as an engineer in the R+D department, where he also

held his first leadership positions before moving to LUX Asia Pacific as board member in 2005.

When he came back to Engineering in September 2008 he took over the position as a board

member for Purchasing, Logistics, IT and later for R+D and Quality Management. From January

2014 on he has taken over in addition the responsibility as Chief Executive Officer of the Division

Engineering. From January 2017 on the position President and CEO of the Division Kobold at

Vorwerk International Switzerland.

Dr. Sebastian Stephan, Patent Consultant at OLBRICHT Patentanwälte

Sebastian Stephan, born in 1984, has a degree in natural sciences with a specialization in applied

geophysics. In parallel to his doctorate studies, he went to business school and completed an MBA

program. His thesis covered the assessment of the IP strategy implementation at hand. Sebastian

Stephan is now working as Patent Consultant at OLBRICHT Patentanwälte in Frankfurt on track

to obtain the admission as German and European Patent Attorney.

Theo Grünewald

He is senior consultant at WURZER & KOLLEGEN GmbH and a research fellow at the Steinbeis

Transfer Institute for Intellectual Property Management at Steinbeis University Berlin. He is a

lecturer at the Master’s degree course in Intellectual Property Law and Management (MIPLM) at

the Center for International Intellectual Property Studies at the University of Strasbourg. Mr.

Grünewald has authored numerous publications on IP strategy development, IP management,

and IP valuation and is also a member of the DIN committees DIN 77006 for quality in IP

management and DIN 77100 for patent valuation.


The 360° IP strategy for the Thermomix

In this third part of our case study about the Thermomix TM5, a multi-functional food processor

from Vorwerk, we explain Vorwerk’s approach to controlling the effectiveness of the IP strategy

for this product and its implementation. Part 1 explained the development of the IP strategy in

collaboration with Kai Schäffner, Senior Vice President Marketing & Product Development and

Board Member Thermomix, 1 and was published in Harvard Business Manager in 2015. The IP

strategy in question is a 360° IP strategy2 for the differentiation approach of the TM5 and its

ecosystem (World of Thermomix, see Fig. 2). The differentiation approach3 according to Porter

was implemented in the 360° IP strategy by creating a monopoly for added value as described by

Pike.4

The second part of the Thermomix TM5 case study, written in collaboration with Rolf-Jürgen

Krämer (Head of Patents & Licenses) and published in the Bulletin of German Patent Attorneys

(Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte) in 2016, explained the implementation and incorporation

of the IP strategy in the organizational structure.5 The implementation follows the structure-

strategy-fit paradigm according to Chandler.6 In order to implement the 360° IP strategy as part of

the organizational structure, a differentiation centre was set up.7

The key empirical results of this third part of the IP management case study for the TM5 was

submitted to the University of Bremen as a Master's thesis entitled “Wirksamkeitskontrolle einer

nutzenorientierten IP-Strategie” (Controlling the effectiveness of a benefits-oriented IP strategy) by

one of the authors (Dr. Stephan) in 2016. The Master's thesis was supervised by Prof. Dr. Freimuth

and one of the authors of this study (Prof. Dr. Wurzer).

1 Wurzer/Schäffner, Patente Küchenmaschine, Harvard Business Manager, 8/2015, pp. 58-63 2 Wurzer/Grünewald/Berres, Die 360° IP-Strategie, Vahlen, Munich:2016, pp. 51 ff. 3 Porter, Die Wettbewerbskräfte neu betrachtet, Harvard Business Manager 5 (2008) 20-26 4 Wurzer/Köllner, Wertorientiertes Patent-Design, Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte 106, 8/9 (2015) 351f; Pike, Virtual Monopoly, 31 ff., London: 2001 5 Wurzer/Berres/Krämer, Organisatorische Umsetzung einer Patentstrategie – ein Fallbeispiel, Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte, 4/2016, pp. 163-171; Wurzer/Köllner, Wertorientiertes Patent-Design, Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte, 106, 8-9/2015, pp. 350-355. 6 Vahs, Organisation: Einführung in die Organisationstheorie und -praxis, 5th edition 2005, p. 183; Chandler, Strategy and Structure, Chapters in the History of Industrial Enterprise, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.: 1962. 7 Wurzer/Kaiser, Patente, Produkte und Profite, Harvard Business Manager, 6 (2006) 23-35.


World of Thermomix: daily usage

as a success factor

The Thermomix TM5 was launched in

September 2014 to replace its predecessor,

the TM31, which had already been on the

market since 2004. The TM5 represents

Vorwerk’s digital transformation.8 Not only

is this food processor able to weigh, cut, mix,

boil and steam food, but it can also process

digital recipe data stored on recipe chips or

downloaded directly from the Internet. By

means of these data, the TM5 automatically

processes recipes and guides the user

through the cooking process via its graphic

user interface (see Figure 3).

Vorwerk uses a direct distribution concept

for the TM5. Over 16,500 representatives

demonstrate the TM5 directly to potential

buyers in a domestic setting. These

representatives are themselves avid users of

the device and are therefore able to

communicate the differentiating features and

USPs of the product with passion and a

personal touch in a live cooking experience.

This marketing and customer acquisition

approach relies on the exact same knowledge

of customer needs and preferences as is

required from Key Account Managers in B2B

settings.

The marketing of the TM5 is based on current

trends such as simplicity and individuality,

including simple and intuitive operation

with the possibility of adapting recipes to

one's own preferences or cooking one's own

8 Rohwetter, Das iPhone aus Wuppertal, Die Zeit 42, 29/10/2015. 9 Cf. for example “Gesund abnehmen mit Thermomix” [Losing weight the healthy way with Thermomix] (only available in German):

creations.9 A key customer benefit is derived

from the support users receive in terms of

their daily dietary choices for themselves and

their families. Two moments in the customer

journey are of central importance for the

success of the business model for the TM5: 1)

product presentation and subsequent

purchase; 2) product recommendation

and/or becoming a representative. The first

decision, i.e. the purchase decision, requires

the perceived customer benefit to be superior

to those provided by the competition and the

representative/brand ambassador to convey

it in a credible fashion. This leads to another

decision, i.e. whether to recommend the

product and to become an active

representative. This decision is primarily

based on the customer's own user

experience.10

Market analyses performed by Vorwerk

show a very strong correlation between

customer satisfaction and intensity of

product use: the greater the frequency of use,

the greater the customer's satisfaction. There

is also a correlation between customer

satisfaction and recommendation rates. The

happier the customer, the higher the

recommendation rate. These correlations

largely hold true across all countries in which

the product is distributed. According to a

German study dating back to 2012, the

likelihood of customers preparing between

https://thermomix.vorwerk.de/ideenreich/food/gesund-abnehmen-mit-thermomix-ernaerungstrends-im-ueberblick/ 10 Schäffner, Digitization of Cooking - The Thermomix Ecosystem, Marketing Club, Speech, Munich: 07/07/2016.


76% and 100% of their daily meals with the

Thermomix to recommend the device is

91%.11

The marketing goal for the TM5 is therefore

derived from its business model: turning the

Thermomix into an essential part of daily life

and people's daily dietary choices. “Daily

usage” is the central marketing goal because

it leads to greater satisfaction and therefore

to an increase in recommendations and the

desire to become a representative. Figure 1

shows the relationships between the various

goals in a schematic representation.12 In

order for IP to have an observable effect on

the market, IP goals must be convertible into

marketing activities and IP effects must be

translatable into customer benefits. This is

one of the basic prerequisites for controlling

the effectiveness of an IP portfolio.

11 Idem.

Recipe availability and quality are central

levers for the “daily usage” goal. Vorwerk's

value proposition for the TM5 are recipes

with a success guarantee. It is extremely

important for users to associate a successful

outcome with the cooking process. The

Thermomix enables users to prepare dishes

which would otherwise exceed their

competences and possibilities. In addition,

users can use the time freed up by the

automated phases of the cooking process

outside of the kitchen. The trigger for

customer satisfaction is a successful outcome

combined with great flexibility and time

savings. Recipe data are therefore the driver

of the business model for the TM5.

Users' “recipe journeys” often begin with the

following question: “What should I cook

today?”. This is the most frequently asked

12 Wurzer/Grünewald/Berres, Die 360° IP-Strategie, Vahlen, Munich:2016, p. 36

Figure 1: Schematic representation of the hierarchy of goals for integrating IP and marketing


question on Google in Germany. 13 The

intensive analysis of the recipe journey from

the recipe search to the cooking process,

commenting, customizing and saving recipes

has shown Vorwerk that this journey is

characterized by inconsistencies, media

disruption and gaps. In addition, dietary

requirements must also be taken into account

in the quest for a suitable recipe. This

includes replacing specific ingredients for

people with food allergies, for instance. What

is more, users tend to follow dietary trends

such as low carb, weight loss, healthy or

vegetarian diets when looking for recipes.14

13 Eisenbrand, “Umsatzwunder Thermomix: So erschafft man ein Marketingphänomen” [Blockbuster Thermomix: How to create a marketing phenomenon] (only available in German), Online Marketing Rockstars: https://omr.com/de/thermomix-marketing/, 01/03/2016.

In order to satisfy these requirements and to

create the recipe-related basis for “daily use”,

Vorwerk has created a complex, varied and

integrated digital ecosystem called “World of

Thermomix” around the Thermomix,

including a recipe search function, dietary

advice and grocery delivery (see Fig. 2).15 The

central component is the recipe platform

called “Thermomix Rezeptwelt” (in English:

“Thermomix Recipe Community”)16 with

hundreds of thousands of registered users

and thousands of recipes. In Germany alone,

approx. 5 million recipes are downloaded

from “Thermomix Rezeptwelt” every month.

14 Schäffner, Digitization of Cooking - The Thermomix Ecosystem, Marketing Club, Speech, Munich: 07/07/2016. 15 https://thermomix.vorwerk.de/hellofresh/ (only available in Germany) 16 www.rezeptwelt.de (English version: www.recipecommunity.co.uk)

Figure 2: “World of Thermomix” – The digital ecosystem around the Thermomix.14


In order to guarantee success when following

the individual steps of a recipe, Vorwerk has

integrated the recipe software with the

hardware of the TM5. The TM5 receives its

recipes initially via recipe chips and then via

the Internet and guides the user through the

cooking process. This “guided cooking”

leads to a special self-directed and

autonomous cooking experience which, at

the same time, leaves the user feeling

confident not to make any mistakes when

following the individual steps. Simple, quick

and flexible cooking combined with quality-

assured recipes is at the core of the

Thermomix success guarantee.17

17 Schäffner, Digitization of Cooking - The Thermomix Ecosystem, Marketing Club, Speech, Munich: 07/07/2016.

The IP concept in the context of

competitive differentiation for

the TM5 The IP strategy developed for the

Thermomix18 is based on the core ideas of the

4P concept.19 The starting point is

competitive differentiation, based on the

simplified notion that competition is due to

the fact that customers will select those

products and services from the different

options provided by different companies

which offer them the best perceived benefit.

This fundamental customer choice is crucial

because this component is exactly what

needs to be influenced by means of IP. The

customer's willingness to pay a certain price

will ultimately depend on whether a product

or service offers the best perceived benefit. In

18 Wurzer/Schäffner, Patente Küchenmaschine, Harvard Business Manager, 8/2015, pp. 58-63 19 Wurzer/Grünewald/Berres, Die 360° IP-Strategie, Vahlen, Munich:2016, p. 5

Figure 3: Integration of hardware and software in the TM5 through different cooking modes.17


order to successfully enforce premium

prices, it is necessary to create a position of

exclusivity which, in the view of the

customer, offers the perceived customer

benefit. One of the essential positions in the

case of the Thermomix is “guided cooking”

in connection with a smooth and hurdle-free

“recipe journey”.

The role of IP in the 4P concept is

schematically illustrated in Figure 4.20 A

differentiated communication of customer

benefits is required in order to leverage

customers' willingness to pay. One way of

conceptualising this strategy is the 4P

concept derived from the “4Ps” of marketing

(product, promotion, price, point of sale). It

is important to note here that the 4P concept

is not just a concatenation of terms but rather

a concept consisting of integrated and

interrelated elements.

20 Idem. 21 Wurzer/Grünewald/Berres, Die 360° IP-Strategie, Vahlen, Munich:2016, pp. 51 ff. 22 Wurzer/Berres/Krämer, Organisatorische Umsetzung einer Patentstrategie – ein Fallbeispiel,

Customer-centric IP generation begins with

the USP (unique selling proposition). This

selling proposition must be communicated to

the customer in a suitable and

comprehensible manner. This is best

achieved by means of a UCP (unique

communication position). IP ensures legal

enforceability for both unique positions.

The ideal conditions for achieving premium

prices are given when a legally protected

unique selling proposition is met with the

customer's willingness to pay.

The 360° IP strategy for the TM5 A 360° IP strategy21 was used in order to

implement the 4P concept and translated into

a differentiation centre structure22.

The 360° IP strategy is organized around the

central meeting point between the customer's

willingness to pay and the product and the

associated customer benefit. In the case of the

Thermomix, that includes the everyday

dietary support received by users as well as

the cooking experience and the success

guarantee.

Starting from this central point, the 360° IP

strategy extends horizontally in two

directions: resources towards the left and

market/market competitors towards the

right. The left-hand side therefore

corresponds to the inward-facing or

resource-oriented perspective (also known as

“resource-based view”)23, while the right-

Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte, 4/2016, pp 163-171. 23 Barney etc. Core Competency Approach…(lecture slides Module 1)

Figure 4: The 4P concept.


hand side represents the outward-facing or

market-oriented perspective (also known as

“market-based view”)24.

The 360° IP strategy is used in order to obtain

a simultaneous and consistent overview of

the different IP perspectives25, the focus

being on the different instruments for

influencing customer decision-making

provided by IP. The 360° view is divided into

four segments. Each segment pursues a

different generic goal and has a different

temporal focus. Time is key for the IP

strategy. The basic idea that whoever is first

to originate or patent an invention should

also be the one who holds the rights to that

invention applies around the globe. By

24 Porter, The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy, Harvard Business Review, 1 (2008) 25-40.

default, each IP strategy therefore operates

within an existing IP environment. What is

more, developing a strategy itself typically

involves the origination of more or less

specific inventions such as (previous)

proprietary technologies or predecessor

products such as – in the case of the TM5 –

the TM31.

Since the strategy has the purpose of

highlighting the path to the future and

shaping that future, it is crucial that it

captures this temporal component. Due to a

company's resources, its market

environment, and its competitive

environment, past, present and future play a

central role in the continuous development

25 Wurzer/Grünewald/Berres, loc. cit. pp. 54ff.

Figure 5: General principle of a 360° IP Strategy.


process. The origination of IP must follow the

temporal constants which are intrinsic to this

asset. A powerful portfolio does not emerge

overnight. Creating a specific portfolio for

the TM5 took about three years until the

product was launched and the further

development of the portfolio is ongoing.

Turning brands like “Thermomix” and

“Vorwerk” into strong brands takes years.

The process from filing a patent application

to the patent being granted takes at least

several months. In Germany, it takes

approximately two years. In other countries,

it sometimes takes considerably longer. An

essential component for the creation of an IP

portfolio as part of an IP strategy is

sustainable continuity – especially when it

comes to customer communication. The goal

of establishing and managing customer

relationships is longevity. And this is the

starting point for continuity in

communication. The four temporal

dimensions of a 360° IP strategy are outlined

below:

Segment (I): Present

Segment (II): Past

Segment (III): Future

Segment (IV): Continuity

Within these four segments, the priorities for

the IP strategy lie in different generic tasks.

Segment (I) deals with risk control, i.e. risks

related to current action. The core idea of

segment (I) is to establish freedom of action.

Vorwerk creates added value or intends to

develop further and operate its value-

creation architecture as part of the TM5

innovation project. Vorwerk must be able to

control the risks that can emerge from third-

party IP, along this value-creation

architecture in order to maintain the

necessary freedom of action for

implementing its own business model.

Segment (II) is backward-looking, i.e. it

focuses on the existing development

expenses and results available at the time of

strategy development and/or

implementation. Imitation can only take

place when something already exists. The

orientation towards the past is equally

important, because strategies must always

take into account the available resources,

skills and competencies. To a certain degree,

these resources are already available to

Vorwerk and determine its options for

action. Segment (II) is concerned with the

options for suppressing imitation of the

results obtained by using IP.

Segment (III) is forward-looking. The special

advantage of IP is that applications filed

today can provide a company with

immediate exclusivity for future products

and services as well as the related customer

benefits. To this end, however, we need to be

able to describe that future. Such a

description provides the groundwork for


synthetic inventing26 in order to generate

patents and other IP assets. When

developing IP to design future market

positions, we must consistently think in

terms of prohibitive rights. It is also

necessary to ensure that the market is

described objectively and that the

competition for this market position is

analyzed from the customer's perspective.

From an IP perspective, the competitive

situation for the TM5 and its ecosystem

differs fundamentally from that of its

predecessor TM31.

Segment (IV) focuses on the continuity

between the different time perspectives. All

segments focus on the customer: their

decision-making is at the core of all

considerations. A company is only able to

provide its offerings if it enjoys freedom of

action in the value-creation architecture. The

suppression of imitations ensures

comprehensive value generation based on

the company's available resources. The

customer perceives the performance of the

TM5 as unique. Especially future market

positions must be designed in such a way

that they can be made exclusive. It is also

important to include the customer in the

ecosystem developed for them. In segment

26 Cf. synthetic inventing: Wurzer/Köllner, Wertorientiertes Patent-Design, Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte 106, 8/9 (2015) pp. 352f. 27 Vahs, Organisation: Einführung in die Organisationstheorie und -praxis, 5th edition 2005, p. 183; Chandler, Strategy and Structure, Chapters in the History of Industrial Enterprise, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.: 1962.

(IV), all efforts are directed at ensuring that

the effects derived from IP in segments (I)-

(III) are, in fact, detectable for the customer

and communicated in a consistent manner.

While segments (I)-(III) essentially deal with

the USP and its operational implementation,

segment (IV) deals with the UCP, i.e. the use

of IP in order to create a unique

communication position.

Structure-strategy-fit:

Organizational implementation

of the 360° IP strategy

In their most basic forms, IP strategy and

organizational structure are interdependent.

According to Chandler, (organizational)

structure must follow strategy. At the same

time, however, the slow response of

organizational structures to change limits a

company's strategic options.27 The decisive

factor for managing IP in practice is to create

a strategy-structure-fit and to review it on a

regular basis. Vorwerk's business model for

the TM5, for example, determines the IP

strategy and its objectives and thus also the

organizational structure required for the

implementation of this strategy. 28 Individual

organizational elements such as patent or

portfolio evaluation criteria must be

28 Cf. Sullivan: “Strategy implementation inevitably involves many parts of the organization” from: Extracting Value from Intellectual Property, in: Sullivan [ed.], Profiting from Intellectual Capital, 1998, p. 111; Frey/Wurzer, IP-Managers in Strategy Development: Integrating IP into Business Models, in: Wurzer, IP-Manager, 2009, pp. 101 ff.; Wurzer/Kaiser, Patente, Produkte und Profite, Harvard Business Manager, 6 (2006) 23-35.


consistently and constantly derived from

business objectives29 in order to provide

meaningful measures for controlling

purposes.30 This can result in a challenge for

integrated patent management where

effectiveness and efficiency goals must be

aligned.31

In the present case of the Thermomix, a

multi-functional food processor from

Vorwerk, a differentiation centre was chosen

for the organizational implementation of the

strategy. A differentiation centre is the

organizational implementation of a

differentiation strategy.32 This differentiation

strategy forms the basis of the 4P concept (see

(I.2)) and the associated 360° IP strategy (see

(I.3)).

The differentiation strategy as a market and

competitive strategy focuses on customer-

relevant USPs and thus prevents a purely

price-based comparison with competitive

offers by the customer. This added value,

which can be perceived by the customer and

is reflected in the customer's willingness to

pay, addresses the direct benefits for the

customer, while the benefits of general

29 Cf. IP management system: Davis/Harrison, Edison in the Boardroom, 2991, p. 15; Pike, Virtual Monopoly, 2001, pp. 178 ff. 30 Cf. metrics and indicators for IP strategies and IP management: Hunter, A management perspective, in: Bosworth/Webster (ed.), The Management of Intellectual Property, 2006, pp. 77–80. 31 Wurzer, Integriertes Innovations- und Patentmanagement, in: Gleich/Rauen/Russo/Wittenstein (ed.), Innovationsmanagement in der Investitionsgüterindustrie treffsicher voranbringen, 2006, pp. 34 ff.; Wurzer, Integriertes Innovations-

product characteristics when using the

product are not always immediately clear

from the customer's perspective.33

und Patentmanagement, in: Gleich/Rauen/Russo/Wittenstein (ed.), Innovationsmanagement in der Investitionsgüterindustrie treffsicher voranbringen, 2nd edition, 2012, pp. 376 ff. 32 Grant, Contemporary Strategy Analysis, 7th edition, 2011: p. 211; Wurzer/Köllner, Wertorientiertes Patent-Design, Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte 106, 8/9 (2015) 351. 33 The differentiation centre is a specific type of cost centre, cf. strategy nomenclature in Davis/Harrison, Edison in the Boardroom, 2001, p. 19.


The contribution of IP to

commercial success

The 4P concept and its implementation in the

360° IP strategy ensure that the intrinsic

economic lever in IP is used in a targeted and

systematic manner. The commercial effect of

IP within the scope of a competitive strategy

based on differentiation must be compared

to a situation without any defensible,

exclusive and sustainable added value. The

added value position corresponds to the

customer benefit for which the customer is

willing to pay and which becomes exclusive

and defensible through IP. Such exclusivity

ensures that premium prices can be achieved

at the point of sale compared to similar

products without such a USP. The exclusivity

perceived by the customer will erode across

the life cycle of a product as an increasing

number of alternative customer benefits

which are perceived as identical or at least

comparable appear on the market. But for

USPs protected by IP, the price position is

more sustainable than without such legally

enforceable added value.

These effects result in the commercial added

value represented by the grey area between

the two curves in Figure 6. This effect also

bears the possibility of observing and

controlling the commercial impact of IP. This

transparency allows innovation and product

management to optimize the input and

output relationships of their IP work directly

in line with the market result. By aligning IP

with the commercial result in this way, the

implementation of the 360° IP strategy leads

to success significantly faster than with the

traditional patent process. The price

Figure 6: Commercial effect of IP in competitive differentiation.


premium effect leads to improved margins

and the sustainability of the process provides

long-term control over the added value

position. This must be monitored by means

of IP asset controlling.

The commercial success of the Thermomix is

undisputed and impressive34: 50% sales

increase for Vorwerk to EUR 1.4 billion35

with the Thermomix within a year. Over 2

million TM5 units sold worldwide and on

average one home selling party in Germany

every 22 seconds. These home selling parties

serve the purpose of learning how to use the

Thermomix without having to consult a user

manual. This is probably the most obvious

way of documenting the “easy to use” aspect.

The representatives are themselves

passionate users and evangelists of the

product. What is more, intensive competitive

activity is easy to recognize. Especially since

the TM5, the Thermomix has been

recognized as a dominant design within its

competitive environment.36 Imitations and

lookalikes attempt to position themselves as

closely as possible to the dominant product

in the market.

This situation inspired the research questions

for the Master's thesis of Dr. Sebastian Stephan

on the subject of exclusivity monitoring in

order to determine the effects of the IP

strategy for the TM5:

Is IP suitable for securing the market

position? How sustainably can benefits

be protected?

How long does it take for the exclusivity

to erode?

Can the exclusivity achieved through IP

be described by means of KPIs?

The thesis was based on the following

hypotheses:

A value-oriented IP strategy is suitable

in order to achieve legal protection of

USPs.

Legally protecting USPs via a value-

oriented IP strategy allows us to justify a

premium price over competitive

products with customers' preference for

the protected product features.

The following section will briefly explain the

fundamental challenges of IP controlling and

subsequently describe the specific approach

and the empirical results for the TM5.

34 http://www.focus.de/finanzen/experten/engl/thermomix-was-die-autoindustrie-vom-thermomix-erfolg-lernen-kann_id_6079633.html (only available in German)

35 http://www.wiwo.de/unternehmen/mittelstand/vorwerk-der-thermomix-boomt-weiter/14821644.html (only available in German) 36 Abernathy/Utterback, Patterns of Industrial Innovation, Technology Review 80/7 (1978) 2-9.


IP as a controlling challenge

Controlling is an integral part of an operational management system. The main tasks include

planning, steering and controlling in all areas which are relevant for business success. The central

objective of controlling is to manage all information which is relevant for success and goal

attainment and to make this information available to senior management. To this end, it is

necessary to specify the objectives as precisely as possible in order to verify and ensure their

achievement in a targeted manner. The interaction of management control systems (MCS) and

company performance has been subject to extensive examination and has been found to be

positive.37

Controlling of intangibles

Ever since the increasing importance of

intangible assets (IA)38 was discovered in the

1990s and the impact of IA on shareholder

value and corporate growth was confirmed39,

there has been intensive debate on how to

control such intangible and non-financial

assets.40 The value structures of companies

have seen a dramatic transformation over the

past 30 years. Depending on the evaluation

methods and metrics used, intangible assets

37 Cf. Peljhan/Tekavcic, The Impact of Management Control Systems – Strategy Interaction on Performance

Management: A Case Study, Organizacija, 41, 9-10 (2008), 174-184 and corresponding literature. 38 Intangible assets include: intellectual property, intellectual capital, goodwill, cf.: Ch’Ang, Yastrebroff, Discover Your Invisible Advantage, Les Nouvelles 03 (2003) 32-37 Intangible Assets (intellectual property, intellectual capital, goodwill) 39 Duhr/Haller, Management Control and Reporting of Intangibles, Schmalenbach Business Review, Special Issue 4/13 – see corresponding literature. 40 Grünewald/Köllner/Petersen/Wurzer/Zwirner, Bilanzierung von Patenten, Cologne: 2010, pp. 25ff. Intangible Assets Anson, Drive capitalization, Les Nouvelles, 9 (1999) 133; Baum, the Intellectual Property Audit, Les Nouvelles 12 (2002) 193-198. 41 Cf. Wurzer/Grünewald/Reinhardt, Valuation of Patents, Alphen aan den Rijn, Frederick MD, Bedfordshire: 2012, p. 70, line 127 and corresponding literature. 42 Wurzer/Grünewald/Stübiger, Patente in der Unternehmensfinanzierung, Mitteilung der Deutschen Patentanwälte 7-8 (2011) 336-344. 43 Menninger/Wurzer, Bewertungsstandards für Patente und Marken, Kommentare zu DIN77100, DIN ISO 10668, IDW S5 und IVS 210 Wiley, Weinheim: 2014; Grünewald/Wurzer, Monetäre Patentbewertung nach DIN 77100, DIN-Beuth, Berlin, Vienna, Zurich: 2012 and corresponding literature.

account for the lion's share of a company's

value (sometimes even more than 90%).41 The

inclusion of such assets in companies'

finances42 triggered a debate about “value”

and “valuation” which was, to some extent,

resolved in DIN-ISO 1066 (the international

standard for trademark valuation) and

DIN77100 (the international standard for

patent valuation). 43


A direct monetary valuation of intangible

assets, and especially of intellectual property,

is usually unsuitable for operational

purposes. Operations management and

senior management as well as supervisory

bodies much rather require a summative

overview of a company's IP situation.44 The

core tasks of the operational IP controlling

can be summarised as follows:

Transparency

IP controlling provides information which

is of relevance for planning, steering,

target achievement, budgeting and

controlling.

Resource allocation

Definition of specific objectives and

prioritization of specific areas in which

exclusivity is to be achieved. Ensuring

that the resources are used to achieve

these goals.

Controlling

Definition of specific objectives and

monitoring of goal achievement lead to a

systematic integration of IP with the

company's business model and thus

ensure maximum benefits.

Optimization

Continuous monitoring, documentation

and analysis of IP-related costs and

benefits permit a goal-oriented design and

optimization of the IP portfolio based on

KPIs.

44 Wurzer/Wieselhuber, Informationsbedarf im Aufsichtsrat zur Bewertung der Innovationsleistung des Unternehmens, Board 5 (2014) 203-206.

Definition of controlling objectives

Strategy implementation requires the

definition of specific controlling objectives.

These must be defined in accordance with

the specific characteristics of IP. The

definition of controlling objectives in order to

design meaningful controlling tasks is

therefore of critical importance when

managing IP in a corporate environment. We

must distinguish between three different

perspectives in this respect:

Efficiency perspective

Monitoring and steering of the efficiency

of the IP process by identifying potentials

for optimization.

Learning perspective

Monitoring of the degree to which the

goals defined for the IP strategy are being

attained. Analysis of deviations from the

target in order to improve future IP

activities.

Optimization perspective

Optimization and steering of the degree

to which the goals defined for the IP

strategy are being attained and

summarization of the information for

future IP budgeting.

The design of IP controlling should be

embedded in the company's existing

information structure. By defining suitable

KPIs (Key Performance Indicators), the

wealth of information available can be


compacted to just a handful of metrics. In

addition, it is necessary to integrate an IP

controlling process which continuously

captures, documents and evaluates the

relevant data in defined intervals and

prepares them for decision-making.

KPIs are a well-established management

tool. They condense the information

measured in the form of ratios or absolute

figures and provide quantitative information

about the situation. However, an appropriate

and success-relevant picture of the situation

can usually not be obtained by using a single

KPI but rather by employing several KPIs

and looking at their interrelations and

quantitative correlations (also known as KPI

systems).45

.

IP asset controlling with a 360° IP strategy

The implementation of the 360° IP strategy for the TM5 is associated with the consumption of

substantial resources. To implement the strategy, internal and external experts spend time

generating synthetic inventions, patent attorneys are regularly commissioned with preparing and

supervising patent applications, lawyers supervise trademark applications and the registration

and the relevant authorities charge fees for the registration and maintenance of IP assets. The

value contribution of IP to the business model, however, cannot be readily determined from

regular business information by persons (including senior management) who have not been

actively involved in developing the strategy.

Traditional metrics and reporting systems are usually unsuitable for verifying the success of the

IP created, including meaningful resource allocation. Modern IP management therefore also

provides for the use of controlling tools which measure and communicate the relevant effect.

IP asset controlling and

balanced scorecard

IP asset controlling seeks to control the

success of the 360° IP strategy and its

implementation and map it by means of an

IP scorecard. By verifying whether the

45 Küting/Weber, Die Bilanzanalyse, Beurteilung von Abschlüssen nach HGB und IFRS, 10th edition, Stuttgart: 2012.

objectives set in the strategy development

process have been achieved, the value

contributions made by IP in the business

model are brought to the fore. This type of

reporting highlights the benefits of these

measures in a direct and credible way. IP

experts no longer have to rely on


assumptions regarding the value

contribution to the operative business, which

are difficult to verify and sometimes prone to

speculation. IP asset controlling therefore

provides the basic information required by

such entities as senior management in order

to assess whether an investment in IP was

justified. In addition, being able to recognize

unmet IP goals provides an opportunity for

further analysis of the reasons for such lack

of success. The lessons learned can in turn be

used for future strategy development and

implementation. Last but not least, success

monitoring and analysis also provide the

possibility of determining future IP budgets

in a goal-oriented manner.

The outcomes of the IP asset controlling are

mapped onto an IP scorecard. This tool was

derived from the so-called balanced

scorecard46, a tool for communicating,

monitoring and controlling the

implementation of business strategies. The

balanced scorecard was developed by Robert

P. Kaplan and David P. Norton in the 1990s.

Its inventors had realized that traditional

systems of metrics, which were exclusively

focusing on financial aspects, were no longer

an adequate recipe for success in the light of

an increasingly tough competitive

environment and the ever-increasing

importance of intangible value drivers.

Kaplan and Norton therefore added further,

non-monetary performance indicators to

these management systems. These KPIs

46 Kaplan/Norton, Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System, in: Focusing Your Organization on Strategy – with the Balanced

Scorecard, 2nd edition, Harvard Business Review, 2000, pp. 38-47.


clearly define the company's business goals

and the measures required for implementing

its strategy. By sharing the balanced score

card with all employees, everybody obtains a

clear picture of the chosen course and can

make their contribution towards achieving

the required results.

The KPIs of the balanced scorecard relate to

the company's strategy. According to Kaplan

and Norton, there are four main strategic

perspectives: the learning and development

perspective, the process perspective, the

customer perspective and the financial

perspective. For each of these perspectives,

quantifiable indicators are defined which

describe the company's objectives in the best

possible way. Each indicator is, in turn,

attributed measures which highlight the path

47 Wurzer/Grünewald/Berres, Die 360° IP-Strategie, Vahlen, Munich:2016, pp. 51 ff.

to goal achievement. Fixed setpoint values

for the indicators show the target ranges for

the individual aspects. Measuring the

ACTUAL values and comparing them with

the TARGET values provides an indication of

the company's success in pursuing its goals

as well as a starting point for actively

controlling its activities.

While the balanced scorecard focuses on

steering the implementation of a strategy, the

IP scorecard is aimed at measuring the

degree of goal attainment by means of

implemented IP measures. The 360° IP

strategy consists of four perspectives:

managing risks, suppressing imitation,

designing the market position and

communicating the USP.47 These four areas

are represented on the scorecard. In addition,

Figure 7: Excerpt from an IP scorecard.


goals to be achieved by designing IP assets

are defined within the scope of strategy

development.

This demonstrates that the development of a

360° IP strategy is a prerequisite for the

development of an IP scorecard – a fact

which is immediately obvious because a

meaningful evaluation of the success of an

objective is only possible if that objective has

been defined prior to taking specific

measures. Once objectives have been

defined, they must be translated into

indicators which allow us to visualize

success in terms of the contribution of IP

within the business model.

When defining KPIs, it is essential that they

focus on the desired market effect rather than

the IP rights as such. The basic information

required in order to quantify these KPIs is

usually not provided by the patent

department but by business functions which

are close to the market.

48 Cf. MTU example: Grünberger, Vom IP-

Management zum Intellectual Asset Management, EPI, Munich: 08/03/2012; cf. Henkel example: Kucken, Strategisches IP-Portfoliomanagement, Patente, Munich: 12/03/2014; Langfinger, Strategisches IP-Management, IP-Bewertung, Frankfurt: 27-28/03/2006.

49 Cf. Niethammer, Integratives Patentmanagement, Patente, Munich, 05/03/2013; Germeraad, Integration of intellectual property strategy with innovation strategy, Research Technology Management 5/6 (2010) 10-18; Granstrand, Corporate management of intellectual property

Integrated IP management

system in the form of a

differentiation centre at Vorwerk

IP asset controlling is a functional

component of an IP management system. A

management system for IP combines

strategic goals with processes and tools in

order to manage IP.48 An integrated IP

management system49 as implemented at

Vorwerk can be achieved by additionally

involving other functions such as innovation

management, corporate strategy, marketing,

product management, controlling... in a

cross-functional management approach.

Such an integrated management system for

patents comprises the following basic

elements:50

Strategic goals51

Strategy can be defined as entrepreneurial

action which enables the attainment of

desired goals and ensures coherence in

company decisions. The central strategic

goal at the Thermomix differentiation

centre is to achieve greatest possible

in Japan, Technology Management, 19 (2000) 121-148; Granstrand/Holgersson, Multinational technology and intellectual property management – is there global convergence and/or specialization?, Int. J. Technology Management 64 (2014) 117-147.

50 Cf. “Strategy implementation inevitably involves many parts of the organization“, Sullivan: Extracting Value from Intellectual Property, in: Sullivan, Profiting from Intellectual Capital, 1998, p. 112.

51 Burr/Stephan/Soppe/Weisheit, Patentmanagement, 2007, p. 90.


exclusivity for the perceived customer

benefits of a company's offerings.

Process landscape52

Processes are operational sequences

which are interlinked, interact with each

other, can be grouped, and together form

a company's process landscape. The

identification of patent needs in order to

achieve exclusivity for a future offering is

a central process within the Thermomix

differentiation centre.

Tool landscape53

This includes methods and software-

based support tools which enable the

performance and interaction of processes.

Information architecture54

Information architecture refers to all

information structures, contents and

specific tools such as processing and

search options available in a company.

Competition monitoring via publicly

accessible patent information databases

52 See Kromm, Process Optimization in Corporate IP

Departments, IP Service World, Munich: 25. 11/2013; Mohnkopf, Wissenssicherung im Ideen- und Erfindungswesen, in: Mohnkopf/Moser, Wissensmanagement für Schutzrechte und ihre Bewertung, 2014, p. 17; Gassmann/Bader: Patentmanagement, 2006, pp. 37ff.

53 Wurzer, Integriertes Innovations- und Patentmanagement, in: Gleich/Rauen/Russo/Wittenstein (ed.), Innovationsmanagement in der Investitionsgüterindustrie treffsicher voranbringen, 2006, p. 48.

54 Cf. for an overview: Jewess, Inside Intellectual Property, 2013, pp. 53ff; Burr/Stephan/Soppe/Weisheit, Patentmanagement, 2007, p. 155; Moses,

which allow companies to map patents of

different competitors with products,

markets... and to evaluate them, is also

part of a patent-related information

architecture.

Resources55

The key resources for patent management

are staff and know-how as well as

financial resources and the asset portfolio.

In addition, infrastructure components

are also included in the resource

definition at Vorwerk.

Reporting and controlling56

Gathering and documenting process

information as part of a company's

reporting system creates transparency

and control options for strategy

implementation. This permits an efficient

target-actual comparison of the cost of a

patent portfolio for a specific customer

benefit with the customer's willingness to

pay for the underlying product attribute,

for example.

Faktoren einer erfolgreichen Patentsteuerung im wertorientierten Controlling, 2007, pp. 123ff.

55 See Wurzer, Patentmanagement, 2004, pp. 61ff.; Hundertmark, Nutzen und Management von Schutzinstrumenten, 2012, pp. 141f; Gassmann/Bader, Patentmanagement, pp. 115f; Moses, Faktoren einer erfolgreichen Patentsteuerung im wertorientierten Controlling, 2007, pp. 119ff; Eppinger/Vladova, Intellectual Property Management Practices at Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Int. J. Technology Management 61 (2013) 64-81; Fabry, IP Asset Management, Planung, Verrechnung und Kontrolle von Patent- und Markenkosten, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Patentanwälte 9 (2008) 399-405.

56 Möller/Menninger/Robers: Innovationscontrolling, 2011, pp. 39ff.


The performance of an integrated

management system depends on how well

the individual components work together.57

However, the literature tends to provide

isolated examples of the elements rather than

explanations of meaningful configurations

for a specific business strategy and the

specific interactions between its

components.58 The elements of the

management system must lead to

meaningful interconnected activities in order

to achieve efficiency within the scope of

predefined strategic goals. DIN Spec 1060

dealing with Service Quality in Intellectual

57 Mittelstaedt, Strategisches IP-Management –

mehr als nur Patente, 2009, pp. 39f.; Gassmann/Bader: Patentmanagement, 2006, pp. 103ff.

58 Cf. US study, only 1/3 of all applications come with a business case:

Property Management specifies the structure

of the functions of an IP management system,

in particular the necessary interactions

between these functions.59

The DIN Spec 1060 distinguishes between IP

generation, IP design and the

commercialization of IP. These activities

overlap, merge and are arranged in a circle.

In more concrete terms, this means that IP

generation is not the starting point of all IP

activities. DIN Spec 1060 describes a value

creation process, i.e. a sequence of steps, for

IP as an asset. By means of this process,

Khan/Thomxon/Freedman/Venturio, Intellectual Property Benchmarking Survey: Current and best practices for patent processing, Les Nouvelles 6 (2012) 174-179.

59 DIN Spec 1060: 2010-04, DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V., Innovation: 2009.

Figure 8: Integrated IP management system.


operational sequences within a company are

to be optimized in such a way that verifiable

added value is created by the activities

carried out within the scope of the business

model.60 This basic principle was also applied

in the configuration of Vorwerk's

differentiation centre. The activities of DIN

Spec 1060 were optimized for optimal goal

attainment and value creation and utmost

efficiency in using the available resources.

Exclusivity monitoring:

monitoring the uniqueness of

customer benefits

The practical implementation of IP asset

controlling for the Thermomix was achieved

by means of exclusivity monitoring.61 The

starting point for this exclusivity monitoring

are those product features which, in the eyes

of the customer, lead to purchases and

recommendations. In other words: the

perceived customer benefits. For the

Thermomix, these product features were

assigned to the following categories: time

savings/simplicity, flexibility, safety and

success guarantee as well as guided cooking.

Subsequently, the individual product

features were matched with a portfolio of IP

rights in order to create an IP rights structure

with the corresponding customer benefits.

Finally, competitors' customer

60 Cf. Wurzer, Wertorientiertes Patent-Portfolio,

Mitteilungen der Deutschen Patentanwälte . 9-10 (2005) 430-439.

61 Stephan, “Wirksamkeitskontrolle einer nutzenorientierten IP-Strategie” [Verifying the

communications were analyzed for the

potential promotion and/or implementation

of product features related to those customer

benefits.

The design of the controlling function aims at

verifying whether the competition steers

clear of using product design and

communication features which are similar to

those of the TM5 or whether they use similar

sales arguments to those used by Vorwerk.

Since the hugely successful TM5 is a

dominant design and therefore defines

customers' expectations from a

multifunctional food processor, it would be

an obvious choice for the competition to

adjust their communication of customer

benefits to that of the TM5. It is known from

the above-mentioned market studies that

customers make their decisions related to

purchase and recommendation based on the

benefit communication for the TM5.

Customers ultimately expect competitive

products to provide the same benefits, but at

a lower price. The circumvention of customer

benefit arguments on the part of the

competition despite the obvious dominance

of the market-leading design when making

purchase decisions can be attributed to the

prohibitive effect of the corresponding IP

asset portfolio.

effectiveness of a benefit-driven IP strategy], Master's thesis in Business Administration, University of Bremen, Bremen: 29/09/2016.


A competitive study was performed on the

German market for 8 products and 10

customer benefits. To this end, 74 IP rights

from the TM5 portfolio were analyzed and

mapped as described above. A total of

39 product features were analyzed and

categorized according to customer benefits

and IP rights.

The success guarantee through guided

cooking is a central selling proposition of the

TM5 and can be directly observed by the

customer during a sales presentation.

Another important reason for the high level

of customer satisfaction and therefore the

high recommendation rate is the consistent

fulfilment of the selling proposition of the

TM in daily use. The user experiences guided

cooking as a combination of intelligent menu

navigation with instructions and responses

as shown in the figure below.

Guided cooking as part of the success

guarantee can be experienced in different

customer benefit categories. This includes,

for example, the automatic processing of

entire recipes or the processing of recipes

based on the ingredients and device settings

used.

In turn, this includes product features such

as the digital presentation of recipe data, the

step-by-step completion of processing steps

such as stirring, chopping, mixing... or

weighing during the cooking process. Such

product features were assigned to IP right

families from the TM5 portfolio. These

include documents related to machine

responses on the one hand and documents

concerning the actual processing of recipes

on the other. Machine responses include the

geolocalization of the Thermomix in order to

adapt cooking times or heating with

occasional stirring in order to ensure an

optimal heat distribution in the cooking

chamber. The step-by-step completion of

processing steps includes methods for

creating control programs or the verification

of recipe data for validity while the machine

is in operation.

Figure 1: Schematic representation of the assignment of patents to customer benefits


Competitive activities related to the

communication of customer benefits were

monitored and Vorwerk's exclusivity in the

market in terms of a genuine uniqueness of

customer benefits leading to purchases and

recommendations was analyzed.62

One of the outcomes is presented in

Figure 11. Explanation of the colour coding

used: Green: Product feature not mentioned

in customer communications. Red: Product

feature implemented and communicated by

the competition. Blue: Probably

implemented but not mentioned in customer

communications.

62 Schäffner, Digitization of Cooking - The Thermomix Ecosystem, Marketing Club, Speech, Munich: 07/07/2016.

Exclusivity in the market was analyzed for

the following three customer benefits:

Success guarantee for recipes

Automatic and complete processing of a

recipe

Processing of a recipe depending on

ingredients and device settings

Exclusivity monitoring was performed for

the period from 2011 to 2016, also comprising

the model change with the launch of the TM5

in 2014. As shown in Figure 11, the degree of

exclusivity achieved in the marketplace

varies for each customer benefit in relation to

Figure 10: Guided cooking as experienced by the customer during a presentation of Vorwerk's TM5.62


a reference parameter from the IP strategy

(e.g. flexibility, simplicity, etc.). It is obvious

that competitive intensity has increased over

time and that – as a result of a significantly

improved IP portfolio which is

systematically aligned with the customer

benefit – the TM5 has achieved significant

gains in perceived exclusivity compared to

its predecessor TM31.

Figure 11: Results of exclusivity monitoring.


Conclusion

The 360° IP strategy for the Thermomix TM5 was consistently and systematically designed in such

a way that it covers all key customer benefits in its proprietary IP portfolio. The TM5 is not just a

market leader in terms of the physical device, but it is also a dominant design in terms of the entire

ecosystem which surrounds it. This means that customer expectations are based on the features

and the user experience of the TM5. The normal reaction of the competition in an attempt to

increase its market share would be to align itself as closely as possible with the TM5 as regards

the benefits expected by the customer, while at the same time offering a lower price.

All relevant product features from the customer's perspective, i.e. those capabilities viewed by

customers as “magic”, are protected by the IP portfolio. Ultimately, the IP protection of the

Thermomix covers its look and feel. This means that the competition is excluded from using the

central selling proposition of the TM5. The TM5 therefore effectively enjoys a high level of

exclusivity in terms of those features which are relevant for purchase decisions or

recommendations in the eyes of the customer. Our verification of the effectiveness of the IP

strategy for the TM5 has shown that the corresponding IP portfolio significantly contributes to

the value created within Vorwerks business model for the Thermomix.

Contact

Alexander Wurzer

[email protected]


MIPLM INDUSTRY CASE STUDY | VORWERK Thermomix (I) 55

What is the MIPLM?

The 21st century marks a new era as our economies increasingly rely on knowledge-based

production processes and services. Consequently, the institutions responsible for education and

research in the field of intellectual property law in Europe must provide appropriate training for

staff from the respective professional environments to acquire or reinforce their ability to initiate,

control, protect, exploit and increase the value of intangible assets. The knowledge-based

economy integrates research and development activities, innovation, industrialization and the

marketing of products and services including intangible assets and completely revolutionizes

enterprise management. It creates new professions specialized in dealing with intangible assets:

this branch of law attracts consultants and intellectual property experts from among managers,

jurists and lawyers. Indeed, every innovation process generated by new economic activities

assumes the intervention of the law, the installation of tools and structures for developing or

planning in order to control the intangible assets and to optimize their valorization. It has

therefore been the duty of CEIPI, University of Strasbourg, as a leading center for Intellectual

Property Studies in Europe, to propose a master program on "IP Law and Management" (MIPLM)

since 2005, which complements the existing training

course for engineers, scientists and lawyers. This

"European" master program features a continuous

training scheme aimed at experts in the field of intellectual

property. It provides a genuine education program based

on an investigation carried out in large enterprises in

Europe. The teaching staff comprises academics and

experts from various countries, renowned for their work

and competence in dealing with the impact of intellectual

property on the policy of enterprises.

Christophe Geiger

Director General of CEIPI


Intellectual property has become a crucial factor and driving force in the knowledge-

based economy. The economic development and the competitiveness of companies increasingly

depend on the generation and exploitation of knowledge. Intellectual property can convert

investment in corporate knowledge creation into economic benefits. Thus IP-based appropriation

strategies form the basis for creating wealth and competitive advantages for companies from their

R&D and innovation activities. The development and implementation of sustainable strategies for

IP exploitation require a concerted integration of the disciplines involved in order to achieve an

interdisciplinary perspective on IP. In a knowledge-based economy, companies can only achieve

a competitive edge by combining the economic, legal and technological sciences. IP management

within such a holistic approach provides optimized appropriation strategies and thus essentially

contributes to the creation of wealth within a company. Accordingly, IP management needs

skilled managers who can combine the economics of intangible assets in an intellectualized

environment with multidisciplinary knowledge in order to maximize the benefits of IP. A new

type of competencies, skills and underlying knowledge enters the arena of management and

management education. The increasing impact of intellectualized wealth creation by investment

in knowledge, R&D and innovation followed by its exploitation and IP-based appropriation calls

for seminal new education concepts. The CEIPI program "Master of IP Law and Management"

offers such a new type of management education. It follows

an intrinsically multidisciplinary approach to meet the

challenges and requirements of the knowledge-based

economy. This master program combines legal, economic and

management sciences and includes lectures from leading

scholars in the field of IP law and management. Its ultimate

objective is to qualify experienced IP professionals for acting

as practically-skilled IP managers with a sound knowledge of

the principles of wealth creation in our knowledge-based

economy.

Alexander J. Wurzer

Director of Studies, CEIPI, and

Director of the Steinbeis Transfer Institute Intellectual Property Management


Concepts of the Studies Intellectual property and economics in the present context

are two disciplines that exist in parallel.

Experts are found in each discipline, but with a lack of mutual understanding and training. Both

"worlds" are nowadays bridged by experts, called IP managers, who link both disciplines through

knowledge and experience. The CEIPI studies pursue a holistic approach and engage experts for

the developing market of an IP economy. They are experts for basic economic management

processes with specific assets. Management is understood in the broad sense of an overall

company management and accordingly divided into six general functions:

1. Strategy

2. Decision

3. Implementation

4. Organization

5. Leadership

6. Business Development

On the basis of this differentiation skills should be allocated to management functions, and

relevant knowledge to the functions and skills. The teaching concept focuses on both areas, skills

and knowledge, as relevant to business with intellectual property.

Skills can be allocated to the specific management functions as relevant to the practical work

within IP management. The skills are thus determined by the daily challenges and tasks an IP

manager encounters.

For example, the "Decision" function includes skills such as "valuation and portfolio analysis

techniques", and "Organization" as a function requires skills to manage IP exploitation and

licensing including economic aspects as well as contractual design and international trade

regulations with IP assets.

Special knowledge of economy and law is required in order to implement and deploy these skills

in business. This includes knowledge of economic basics such as function of markets and internal

and external influence factors. Additional management knowledge is also included such as value-

added and value-chain concepts.

The legal knowledge includes contractual and competition law, and special attention will be paid

to European and international IP and trade law, e. g. litigation, licensing, dispute resolution.

Following this concept, IP law and management can be combined in clusters formed of specific

skills and knowledge defined within each management function.


The lectures have a high international standard; the lecturers possess a high reputation and long

experience in the teaching subject with academic and practical backgrounds.

The top-level experts come from the fields of law, economics and technology. The experts and the

students work closely together during the seminar periods. Exchange of experience and, as a

consequence, networking are common follow-ups.

Participants & their Benefits This European master’s program was designed especially

for European patent attorneys, laywers and other experienced IP professionals.

Its ultimate objective is to qualify experienced IP professionals to act as IP managers with the

practical skills and knowledge to deal with the new challenges of wealth creation and profit

generation. Participants acquire first and foremost a new understanding of how intellectual

property works in business models and are conveyed the

necessary skills to achieve the systematic alignment of IP

management and business objectives.

The course provides an international networking platform

for IP managers and in addition enables participants to

build long-lasting relationships and to further develop

relevant topics within the field of IP management. Being

part of this international alumni network also offers new

job opportunities and publication possibilities.


Past lecturers and academics

Prof. Jacques de Werra,

University of Geneva

Prof. Estelle Derclaye,

University of Nottingham

Prof. Christoph Geiger,

University of Strasbourg

Prof. Jonathan Griffiths,

School of Law, Queen Mary,

University of London

Dr. Henning Grosse Ruse-Kahn,

Faculty of Law, University of

Cambridge

Prof. Christian Ohly,

University of Bayreuth

Prof. Christian Osterrith,

University of Constance

Prof. Yann, Ménière,

CERNA, École des mines de

Paris

Prof. Cees Mulder

University of Maastricht

Prof. Julien Penin,

University of Strasbourg, BETA

Prof. Nicolas Petit

University of Liege

Prof. Alexander Peukert,

Goethe University,

Frankfurt/Main

Prof. Jens Schovsbo,

University of Copenhagen

Prof. Martin Senftleben

University of Amsterdam

Prof. Bruno van Pottelsberghe,

Solvay Business School

Prof. Guido Westkamp,

Queen Mary University London

Prof. Alexander Wurzer,

Steinbeis University Berlin

Prof. Estelle Derclaye,

University of Nottingham

Prof. Ulf Petrusson,

Göteborg University

Past lecturers and speakers, practitioners and institutions

Arian Duijvestijn,

SVP BG Lighting Philips Dr. Lorenz Kaiser,

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft

Peter Bittner,

Peter Bittner & Partner

Kees Schüller,

Nestlé S.A.

Thierry Sueur

Air Liquide

Heinz Polsterer,

T-Mobile International

Dr. Fabirama Niang,

Total Group

Philipp Hammans,

Jenoptik AG

Leo Longauer,

UBS AG

Nikolaus Thum,

European Patent Office

Bojan Pretnar

World Intellectual Property

Organization

Romain Girtanner

Watson, Farley & Williams

Prof. Didier Intès,

Cabinet Beau de Loménie, Paris

Malte Köllner,

Köllner & Partner Patentanwälte

Dr. Dorit Weikert,

KPMG

Keith Bergelt,

Open Innovention Network

Selected companies

3M Europe S.A.

ABB Corporate Research Center

ABB Motors and Generators

AGC France SAS

Agfa Graphics

Air Liquide

Airbus Defence and Space

Akzo Nobel NV

BASF Construction Chemicals

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma

British Telecom

Clyde Bergemann Power Group

Danisco/Dupont

DSM Nederland

Fresenius Medical Care

Groupe Danone

Jenoptik

Kenwood

Nestec Ltd

Novartis AG

Philips

Plinkington

PSA Peugeot Citroen

Rittal

Sanofi/Aventis

SAP SE

Schlumberger Etude&Production

ST-Ericsson

Tarkett GDL

Total S.A.

UBS AG

Unilever

INDUSTRY CASE STUDY | VORWERK Thermomix – Part I - III 60

Follow us on: http://ipforbusiness.org/

http://ipforbusiness.org/

http://ipforbusiness.org/

Documents

INDUSTRY CASE STUDY VORWERK - i3pmi3pm.org/.../MIPLM_Series_Case_Study_Vorwerk_Thermomix_Part-I-III.pdf · MIPLM INDUSTRY CASE STUDY | VORWERK Thermomix (I – III) 7 A PATENTED FOOD